Rand Paul

[dgtatu01]

Originally posted by BeaveUKGT:

Originally posted by NotchLickKat :

Originally posted by Beavis606:
^ Who told you that and who made the diagnosis? I guarantee you it wasn't a medical professional. There have been countless studies and not a single one has been able to make the connection you just did.

I'm not a Dr. (but I have spent a night in a Holiday Inn Express) but here is something that just showed up on my FB feed. It may be absolute garbage, I don't know, but feel free to call me stupid for even posting it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/86-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

Gotta love Facebook. The only thing that spreads faster online than information is misinformation. That damn list is everywhere. My g/f's cousin just posted it a day or two ago as well.

Most of those articles don't say what you might think they say. And several of the entries on the list are just incorrect - wrong authors, wrong credentials, etc.

It would take way more effort than I care to give to go through each and every one and tell you what it really says, or the errors in the listings, but suffice to say it's a load of bull.

So you blindly call him an idiot for being skeptical of "experts", but he provides a list of stuff for you to consider and you write it off with a "I don't have time for this so it must be BS?" This is a what's wrong with our country. One side trusts the experts and the other side leans heavily on what they see and hear. I think both are right and wrong. Personally my opinion on vaccines is that we should vaccinate our children, but I also understand that in the process of producing millions of vaccines that we inject into millions of children there are probably some mistakes, just like I think flying is safe, but I know some jets crash.

 

[BeaveUKGT]

Originally posted by dgtatu01:

Originally posted by BeaveUKGT:

Originally posted by NotchLickKat :

Originally posted by Beavis606:
^ Who told you that and who made the diagnosis? I guarantee you it wasn't a medical professional. There have been countless studies and not a single one has been able to make the connection you just did.

I'm not a Dr. (but I have spent a night in a Holiday Inn Express) but here is something that just showed up on my FB feed. It may be absolute garbage, I don't know, but feel free to call me stupid for even posting it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/86-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

Gotta love Facebook. The only thing that spreads faster online than information is misinformation. That damn list is everywhere. My g/f's cousin just posted it a day or two ago as well.

Most of those articles don't say what you might think they say. And several of the entries on the list are just incorrect - wrong authors, wrong credentials, etc.

It would take way more effort than I care to give to go through each and every one and tell you what it really says, or the errors in the listings, but suffice to say it's a load of bull.

So you blindly call him an idiot for being skeptical of "experts", but he provides a list of stuff for you to consider and you write it off with a "I don't have time for this so it must be BS?" This is a what's wrong with our country. One side trusts the experts and the other side leans heavily on what they see and hear. I think both are right and wrong. Personally my opinion on vaccines is that we should vaccinate our children, but I also understand that in the process of producing millions of vaccines that we inject into millions of children there are probably some mistakes, just like I think flying is safe, but I know some jets crash.

Where did I blindly call him an idiot? And what does that even mean - blindly? His list of "stuff" to consider has been debunked already. You really expect me to reply to every single one of those 60-70 supposed articles?

It's not about trusting experts. It's about NOT trusting sh!t your friends and relatives post on Facebook.

 

[ThroughBlue]

Running for prez. Supposed to announce soon

 

[TankedCat]

he was in my neck of the woods yesterday and was asked about presidency. He said he would announce if he was sure his message was resonating with the voters - and if his family was all in on the sacrifices that must be made to run a national campaign.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
I get them too tanked, I don't even open them anymore. You make some good points and I agree, it feels like our vote doesn't matter. It's like whoever spends the most money wins, their message doesn't even matter.

When the SCOTUS voted on the Citizens United case, it meant all future presidents will be purchased. So yes, it doesn't matter who runs, what their positions are, what you think, what I think, or what anyone thinks. The Billionairs will decide who we get. And this cycle it's going to be Bush III or The Chipmunk.

 

[Bill Derington]

Deefense, don't forget to throw Hillary in there too, just as many democrat billionaires as republican.

I don't think Bush or Paul will be the nominee, but I do believe Paul would have less big money backing than either Hillary or Bush.
This post was edited on 2/18 7:01 PM by Bill Derington

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:

Deefense, don't forget to throw Hillary in there too, just as many democrat billionaires as republican.

I did - you missed it.

 

[Bill Derington]

You're right I did, I thought you were calling Paul the Chipmunk, LOL.

 

[TankedCat]

If you want to feel better about Rand Paul, watch this

I know I do



He's no Palin with Couric

 

[ThroughBlue]

#StandWithRand

 

[JonathanW]

Hillary will get tons, record amounts, of money thrown into her campaign.
BUT, I think she may be the most polarizing politicial figure in decades, and while she will get a better than normal-Dem women's turn-out at the polls, but many people (including some women, and many who rarely vote) will be voting against her (regardless of who she is running against). It would be the highest combined voter turnout (in totals ever, and by % in decades if not ever).

Rand is not a party guy. And his message appeals to many moderates, including some registered Dem or Independents who normally vote Dem. So I think he would do quite well in the general election. His problem will be going against the Rep-party-machine in the primaries. You know both parties, have their person (or 2-3 people) whom they really want the nomination to go to, and will do anything to make sure that happens.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Rand would probably be the best president out of the current candidates/anticipated candidates.

But he wants to audit the fed; and that means he'll never win. The fed has more power/money/influence than any movie plot could imagine. No way their books are opened; ever.

 

[Phil McKracken]

Rand was a total asshat in an interview on today this morning. Public perception is just as important as policy stance and he came off looking like a jerk. Same week he announces. Nice look..

 

[HossCat73]

Nah...Paul picked up on her smarmy tone just like I did. Very obvious she was disgusted having to even do the interview.

 

[TankedCat]

I do disagree with one sentiment

The challenge for Rand Paul (and I might venture enough to say Ted Cruz) is getting the GOP nomination - as the GOP is a fractured dumpster fire of people who threaten to take their ball and go home as soon as they hear about a candidate who doesn't fully support a position they require their future president to support - and then in the end they line up to vote for whoever they are told to vote for anyways.

But if Rand were to get the GOP nomination, (and there is an assumption here that he hasn't said or done anything that would lead Americans to believe he's a crazy outlier libertarian), he's absolutely be a nightmare for Hillary because it won't be a moderate trying to out liberal a liberal to win the election, it will be a limited government conservative against a big government politician and Hillary would be put in the position of justifying big government spending on health care , military and more importantly - federal programs like FEMA, HUD, DOE, EPA, etc.

That will appeal to moderates. And I'd like to believe moreso than another Jeb Bush/Chris Christie alternative.

 

[domino79]

We need that mother toucher, Not Sure.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

He didn't get an invitation to the NRA Convention in Nashville where 70,000 are expected to attend. They claim there is no room for another speaker. Other possible Republican Presidential contenders will be speaking.

 

[truth_seeker]

Remember when around last election time he told us the cdc was lying to us about Ebola?

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by truth_seeker:
Remember when around last election time he told us the cdc was lying to us about Ebola?


Oh, that's not as bad as Hillary getting American soldiers killed in Bengazi. But yeah, keep up with your story lines and make you keep supporting some old hag who likes dead American soldiers.

 

[ThroughBlue]

I would LOVE to hear anyone lay out there reasons why they would vote for Hilary over Rand. Just to see how dumb they are

 

[UnfrozenCatfanLawyer]

AMERICANS FIRST PRESDIENT NAMED RANDY - LONG OVERDO IMO MAYBE RANDY TRAVIS CAN BE VICEPRES HAHA

 

[Bryant 50]

"I'm a dedicated physician, not a career politician" ~Rand Paul

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

So whine about Obama not having experience but now wanna elect someone with less experience. Good one! You guys have the thought process of a UL fan.



This post was edited on 4/8 1:45 PM by CatDaddy4daWin

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by CatDaddy4daWin:
So whine about Obama not having experience but now wanna elect someone with less experience. Good one! You guys have the thought process of a UL fan.



This post was edited on 4/8 1:45 PM by CatDaddy4daWin

So you are saying he does have enough experience then...good to know.

 

[LordEgg]

Originally posted by Bryant 50:
"I'm a dedicated physician, not a career politician" ~Rand Paul

I've read this five times now and i swear its hank williams jr. singing it.

 

[Deeeefense]

I went to his web site to read on his positions on the issues. Some seem reasonable but they are all worded in such a general fashion (very few specifics) that it's hard to get a grip on exactly what he would do if elected. One issue that was missing was Global Climate Change. I emailed him and asked what his position is. I'll post it if I get a response.

I think his participation in the primary is going to really spark the debates, especially when foreign policy comes up.




This post was edited on 4/8 5:37 PM by Deeeefense

 

[-BBH-]

Rand has zero chance of winning the general election, and just a slight better chance of winning the nomination. Him and Cruz will likely duke it out for the same pool of voters, while a guy like Jeb Bush will get everyone else.

 

[Big Blue 1977]

Those who say Paul has no chance must have short memories. George W. Bush was viewed widely and rightly as an inarticulate, inexperienced moron, and he won, sort of, and then did win in 2004 for real. As a young fellow, I thought, "Our country is not so stupid that they would vote for Bush, right?" I was proven quite wrong twice.

Rand Paul is eerily similar to W, a half-wit son of a smarter man. If Paul wins the primaries and the Dems put up a weak candidate--just as they did in 2000 and 2004--all bets are off.

 

[TankedCat]

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:

He didn't get an invitation to the NRA Convention in Nashville where 70,000 are expected to attend. They claim there is no room for another speaker. Other possible Republican Presidential contenders will be speaking.

There's alot more to that story than Rand getting a snub from the NRA.

Rand wanted language removed from the Patriot act to support less intrusive actions by our government that the NRA objected to.

Think about that for a moment.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

Originally posted by Big Blue 1977:

Those who say Paul has no chance must have short memories. George W. Bush was viewed widely and rightly as an inarticulate, inexperienced moron, and he won, sort of, and then did win in 2004 for real. As a young fellow, I thought, "Our country is not so stupid that they would vote for Bush, right?" I was proven quite wrong twice.

Rand Paul is eerily similar to W, a half-wit son of a smarter man. If Paul wins the primaries and the Dems put up a weak candidate--just as they did in 2000 and 2004--all bets are off.

Not sure if Dick Cheney is pulling Paul's strings and backing him with a bankroll.
I'm surprised Jeb isn't forced to run with Liz for V.P.

 

[BernieSadori]

Originally posted by Big Blue 1977:


Those who say Paul has no chance must have short memories. George W. Bush was viewed widely and rightly as an inarticulate, inexperienced moron, and he won, sort of, and then did win in 2004 for real. As a young fellow, I thought, "Our country is not so stupid that they would vote for Bush, right?" I was proven quite wrong twice.

Rand Paul is eerily similar to W, a half-wit son of a smarter man. If Paul wins the primaries and the Dems put up a weak candidate--just as they did in 2000 and 2004--all bets are off.

Which GOP candidate do you believe possesses the intellectual capacity to be POTUS?

 

[TankedCat]

Originally posted by -BBH-:
Rand has zero chance of winning the general election, and just a slight better chance of winning the nomination. Him and Cruz will likely duke it out for the same pool of voters, while a guy like Jeb Bush will get everyone else.

I think there is going to be a very vocal backlash within the republican party if Jeb Bush is pushed for the nomination.

There are many GOP voters who see Jeb Bush as an extension of the John McCain/Mitt Romney style of candidate that preaches GOP values until the nomination and then moves center in an attempt to win the election. In their eyes, Jeb and Christie will start off at close to center and move even further left.

That said, I fully expect Bush to a serious push from the power players in the GOP

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

Rand Paul is goofy.
Im voting for Pappy O'Daniel

 

[DDS62]

Originally posted by UnfrozenCatfanLawyer:
He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the Presidency.And the better bet would be on the snowball. He has made to many controdictory statements on policy and issues and refuses to discuss them with the media. The media will crucify him. I predict he will be one of the first to drop out.

 

[TankedCat]

Originally posted by DDS62:

I predict he will be one of the first to drop out.

you don't follow Paul's in politics do you?