Rand Paul
- Thread starter ThroughBlue
- Start date
I like him, not as much as his father, but I respect that he's his own man.
A big reason I like him is that he stands up for what he believes in, and doesn't follow the party-line (as much as most others).
He will run, IF is not the question. Will he win his party's nomination is the big question. He's not a party-guy, so I can't say he is the favorite to win the nomination. That will probably be Bush (who I wanted to run in 2000 instead of his brother).
A big reason I like him is that he stands up for what he believes in, and doesn't follow the party-line (as much as most others).
He will run, IF is not the question. Will he win his party's nomination is the big question. He's not a party-guy, so I can't say he is the favorite to win the nomination. That will probably be Bush (who I wanted to run in 2000 instead of his brother).
Just a question from a minimally informed voter. If Rand enters and loses the Republican Primary, could he turn around and renter the general election as an independent and seriously wreak havoc there?
The real question is which republican candidate has the ability to beat Hillary? Could Rand Paul as an independent against Hillary and whoever the republican nominee is keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse?
The real question is which republican candidate has the ability to beat Hillary? Could Rand Paul as an independent against Hillary and whoever the republican nominee is keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse?
Jeb Bush is the last thing we need. Senator Paul has been going at him recently about his hypocritical marijuana laws.
No Republican will beat Hillary.
Paul can run as a third party and Hillary will still win in a landslide. Why you people think Paul is going to steal Dems votes is a complete joke.
Did you people not see Paul's idiotic response to vaccinations. The guy is Grade A idiot and it's but a matter of time before he tries to back track his idiotic statement.
If he win the Republican nomination, Hillary will be president.
If Paul runs as a third party, Hillary will be president.
Understand?
Conservative literally means conservative use of the government as liberal literally refers to liberal use of the government. If you are conservative but want a huge military to intervene in every international conflict or you want the government to enforce your religious views on the populous than you are not really a conservative you are a Republican. Likewise if you are a liberal and you don't like having a large military and you don't believe the government should define by law social norms than you are not a liberal you are a Democrat.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
Let me guess. On election day you'll check out all the polls to see who the likely winner will be, then vote for that guy? Otherwise you'll have voted for someone who didn't win! And if you vote for the guy that didn't win you might as well stay home.
He won't - He's learned from his father that 3rd party as it currently setup has no shot.
Rand Paul would absolutely gets votes from Democrats who don't want a hard line RINO and reluctantly vote for the democratic nominee. How many it would be against Hillary - who is closer to a moderate than a liberal is anybodies guess, but to think he wouldn't is not understanding how Reagan won in a landslide against Carter.
But it would be meaningless unless Rand won the Republican nomination. I believe that Rand has about as much cache' in the Republican party right now for the 2016 election as he will ever have - unless Cruz, Walker and Bush pull a Herman Caine and implode.
This thread is hilarious. Rand or one of the Libertarian candidates for me. People who toe party lines complaining about 3rd party wasted votes, when it's their votes that have hurt this country are hilarious. Derp derp derp. Keep voting Jeb or Shillary and keep the Dem and Repub alive!! Doing something!! "I'm Mr. Amercan and my opinion is important"
Here's my new policy. You vote for a candidate that wins and shits on our country. Then you get fined or imprisoned. That's how you'll stop voting in these human feces of political candidates.
Here's my new policy. You vote for a candidate that wins and shits on our country. Then you get fined or imprisoned. That's how you'll stop voting in these human feces of political candidates.
From Politico, he has to deal with 2 years of this:
A senior editor for The Daily Beast tweeted "f*** you" at Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday after the Kentucky Republican announced that he would be getting a measles vaccination.
"Today I am getting my booster vaccine. Wonder how the liberal media will misreport this," Paul wrote on Twitter.
"F*** you," Justin Miller, the senior editor, wrote back.
In an email, Rand Paul spokesperson Sergio Gor said it was "completely unacceptable for a journalist to be tweeting these type of comments."
Miller, who deleted the tweet shortly after posting it, apologized for the offending remark in a statement to POLITICO late Tuesday night.
A senior editor for The Daily Beast tweeted "f*** you" at Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday after the Kentucky Republican announced that he would be getting a measles vaccination.
"Today I am getting my booster vaccine. Wonder how the liberal media will misreport this," Paul wrote on Twitter.
"F*** you," Justin Miller, the senior editor, wrote back.
In an email, Rand Paul spokesperson Sergio Gor said it was "completely unacceptable for a journalist to be tweeting these type of comments."
Miller, who deleted the tweet shortly after posting it, apologized for the offending remark in a statement to POLITICO late Tuesday night.
Yep. And Bill, you know it's going to be tough to find a 3rd party option because of perception.
It's funny how there can be various degrees of Repubs or Dems within their party. But when one says "Libertarian" that means there is only one type of Libertarian. But Repubs and Dems can have various differing perspectives, but Libertarians can't. That's why Bill. Hypocrites.
Looks like Idiot is in full damage control mode with his statement that he has seen numerous cases of children who have been given vaccinations and ended up "with profound mental disorders." Now he claims he never said that....I guess being libertarian means to flip/flop when you know your views are really crazy.
Yeah, Senator Paul is such a nut. People are crazy. If you aren't pushing the Bible up their ass around here they are a nut.
I find it hilarious there are retards already giving Hillary the nomination after what we saw in 2008.
Hillary saying vaccines could cause autism = HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT!
Rand Paul saying he agrees with vaccinations, both his kids are vaccinated, but believes the parent should have some input = IDIOT!
In case it matters, here is the full quote from Rand Paul on vaccinations.
"I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they are a good thing, but I think the parent should have some input," said Mr. Paul, an ophthalmologist who added that he did have his children vaccinated. "The state doesn't own your children. Parents own the children."
Hillary in 2008 when the science was already settled but was the "in" thing among liberals and libertarians:
Then it was reported Tuesday that Mrs. Clinton had responded to a questionnaire during the 2008 presidential primary race from a vaccine skeptics group in which she said, "I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines."
Rand Paul saying he agrees with vaccinations, both his kids are vaccinated, but believes the parent should have some input = IDIOT!
In case it matters, here is the full quote from Rand Paul on vaccinations.
"I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they are a good thing, but I think the parent should have some input," said Mr. Paul, an ophthalmologist who added that he did have his children vaccinated. "The state doesn't own your children. Parents own the children."
Hillary in 2008 when the science was already settled but was the "in" thing among liberals and libertarians:
Then it was reported Tuesday that Mrs. Clinton had responded to a questionnaire during the 2008 presidential primary race from a vaccine skeptics group in which she said, "I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines."
I'm not a Cruz fan by any means but....
mom is an American citizen so I'm not sure born in Canada means anything - natural born citizen by congress has many options - one of them is " Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as
long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for
at least five years"
Dad did fight for Castro but quickly regretted that decision as soon as Castro took over and left Cuba to escape the regime.
so I'm not sure either of those topics are heavy hitters and he could turn them into a positive during a debate.
I just can't get passed Cruz looks like a used car salesman.
Big fan of Rand.
I hope he runs independent if he doesn't get the nod.
If not, I'll vote for Gary Johnson (again).
I hope he runs independent if he doesn't get the nod.
If not, I'll vote for Gary Johnson (again).
You're selectively leaving out this gem from your boy...
Paul responded that he has "heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines..."
I like some of his takes, mainly on foreign policy issues and the use of drones.
I find him to be a giant f-tard on most other things who will say anything at any time to appease the people he's speaking to - in other words, a politician.
I find him to be a giant f-tard on most other things who will say anything at any time to appease the people he's speaking to - in other words, a politician.
This is the key phrase that shows either A) his pandering to the anti-vaccine crowd, or B) his lack of critical thinking skills.
Hey Rand, I've heard of many cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after eating mac and cheese.
He says some sensible stuff that makes me start to like him, but then he says stuff like the above and it makes me question how he ever got through med school.
as much as I like what Rand stands for, his pandering to his base makes people shake their head about him.
He's not an idiot like Palin, and he's not a snake like McCain - but he's not a polished politician and when he attempts to spread his message of individual rights, liberty and freedom on issues like vaccination , legalizing drugs and prostitution, or civil rights he just seems like he goes off the reservation.
The game he plays of being just republican enough to stay in the mix but being libertarian enough to differentiate himself (as well as stay as close to his core values as he can) is a fine line to walk and sometimes he fails at it.
Honestly I'd like a better candidate with the sames beliefs of Rand - a polished, confident speaker that has a gift for natural leadership, but there isn't one.
There is baggage with being Libertarian.
1. your platform of liberty and freedom appeals to everyone - and everyone includes the Aryan nation, Brothel owners, militias, secessionists and anarchists among others
2. you're constantly being called an Isolationist when you don't support pre-emptive wars and occupation. This easily gets translated into anti-military by your opposition. That doesn't really set well with the Tea Party folks - at least when it was co-opted by Palin and Glen Beck in 2009. And that's not even touching on the Patriot Act and Water boarding.
3. people want smaller government but Libertarian is a scorched earth approach. If its not in the constitution - and clearly spelled out, then at best its a state issue - and hard core libertarians don't even like state issues. To moderates that is anarchy and its easy to sell them on the idea of a Libertarian leaning candidate doing away with the safety net, the EPA, the DOE, and on and on -
So Rand, and Ron before him embrace these Libertarian platforms but unlike his father, Rand understands you don't get elected - and while Ron running for president was mostly to get issues like the Federal reserve and Blowback into the public vernacular, Rand isn't doing this as an exercise in futility. He wants to be in the oval office and is struggling to find that balance between Republican and Libertarian.
He's only going to get so many comments that he can't walk back before he just takes himself out of contention - and its very early in the process.
He's not an idiot like Palin, and he's not a snake like McCain - but he's not a polished politician and when he attempts to spread his message of individual rights, liberty and freedom on issues like vaccination , legalizing drugs and prostitution, or civil rights he just seems like he goes off the reservation.
The game he plays of being just republican enough to stay in the mix but being libertarian enough to differentiate himself (as well as stay as close to his core values as he can) is a fine line to walk and sometimes he fails at it.
Honestly I'd like a better candidate with the sames beliefs of Rand - a polished, confident speaker that has a gift for natural leadership, but there isn't one.
There is baggage with being Libertarian.
1. your platform of liberty and freedom appeals to everyone - and everyone includes the Aryan nation, Brothel owners, militias, secessionists and anarchists among others
2. you're constantly being called an Isolationist when you don't support pre-emptive wars and occupation. This easily gets translated into anti-military by your opposition. That doesn't really set well with the Tea Party folks - at least when it was co-opted by Palin and Glen Beck in 2009. And that's not even touching on the Patriot Act and Water boarding.
3. people want smaller government but Libertarian is a scorched earth approach. If its not in the constitution - and clearly spelled out, then at best its a state issue - and hard core libertarians don't even like state issues. To moderates that is anarchy and its easy to sell them on the idea of a Libertarian leaning candidate doing away with the safety net, the EPA, the DOE, and on and on -
So Rand, and Ron before him embrace these Libertarian platforms but unlike his father, Rand understands you don't get elected - and while Ron running for president was mostly to get issues like the Federal reserve and Blowback into the public vernacular, Rand isn't doing this as an exercise in futility. He wants to be in the oval office and is struggling to find that balance between Republican and Libertarian.
He's only going to get so many comments that he can't walk back before he just takes himself out of contention - and its very early in the process.
Rand's way of thinking is starting to pick up more and more as the years go on. He will be a president of this country.
If not him now, then who Tanked?
If not him now, then who Tanked?
You get elected by telling people what you are going to do for them, not what you'll let them do for themselves.
War, Income security, morality - too many Americans look to the federal government as their benefactor.
It's only when the federal government doesn't have enough to give will people embrace a libertarian viewpoint.
At the end of the day, people will love to hear Paul talk about giving them more freedom, more liberty, less government invasion on their lives until he stalks talking about what it takes to do that, and then they'll revert back to supporting big government Republicans
Even now, the Republicans are embracing income equality as a platform plank and just 8 years ago they railed about that being wealth distribution
He is not saying that vaccines caused these disorders. If you read it he is not saying that. I do think it is fair to leave open the option that vaccines may cause some mental changes in a very small number of children although there hasn't been any correlation made. I think he was leaving that open as an option as a possible cause of autism or mental disorders. Not an unreasonable take.
but just an unnecessary one. It was a calculated move on his part to appeal to the libertarians and tap into the growing hatred of mandated health care. Except he went after something that has been generally accepted by the masses for decades.
In the end, I think he lost more supporters than he gained - and the ones he gained would have come around to him anyways
This is example of what I was talking about - Rand doesn't have to interject his libertarian slant on every topic and as a physician, he didn't have to talk about kids having mental or physical issues , especially if he can't point to one example tied directly to a vaccine.
For any senator/presidential candidate to say what he did with zero evidence = unacceptable. For any medical doctor to say what he did with zero evidence = unconscionable.
I was one of the first in the Paul train, but I'm pretty much off of it now - between his kooky PAC emails, his vaccine comments, and general presentation in that cnbc interview, he either doesn't get how to engage the public or can't control his temper. I guess back to Gary Johnson.
What did the other candidates say about it, not after the faux outrage towards Paul. He expressed an opinion, that's all, actually his opinion was that parents should get their children vaccinated, they should just have input.
This is a nonissue, it's ridiculous actually. No wonder we can't get politicians to actually say or do anything that could possibly be meaningful.
This post was edited on 2/5 9:40 PM by Bill Derington
This is a nonissue, it's ridiculous actually. No wonder we can't get politicians to actually say or do anything that could possibly be meaningful.
This post was edited on 2/5 9:40 PM by Bill Derington
A doctor (even an eye doctor) stating that he's seen healthy children be crippled after vaccines isn't an opinion, and it's an idiotic statement of "fact". I'm not sure what other conclusion you can reach? If he isn't saying the vaccines caused it, what is he saying? Does someone with a MD really use his own anecdotal data to make such profound statements? Who are these kids? How many? What vaccines?
Similar threads
