Rand Paul Puts Hilary Clinton on Blast

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

This is the first time a GOP candidate has reached 20% in a crowded field and the first time a Zogby poll has shown someone emerging a bit from the pack. Obviously it is too early to predict outcomes or draw lasting conclusion but here are some points to consider:

• Rand Paul appears to do well among all sub-groups, notably men (29%), voters 30-64 years olds (where he leads), self-identified Republicans, independents, and conservatives (among whom he leads with 19%, 17%, and 20% respectively), and moderates (23%). He also leads among Protestants and Born Again/Evangelical GOP voters (21% and 20% respectively).
• Unlike typical polls at this early stage, Paul’s lead is not attributable to simple name recognition. He is decidedly less known than Bush, Christie, and Rubio. He may be drawing on his famous father’s support from previous runs – perhaps in the same way early polls in the late 1990s showed George W. Bush leading the field – but Rand Paul is emerging as the frontrunner in this race.
• We really don’t know who will actually run. Scott Walker’s showing at 8% is pretty impressive, but numbers (and passion) like this at least suggest that Rand Paul can put together a coalition that includes Tea Party, moderate, fiscal conservative , and foreign policy non-interventionists to become a finalist at the GOP convention in 2016.
• These numbers also mean that more prominent names are not popular enough, even this early in the process. If Paul has anywhere near the kind of passion and organization his father had, he can build on his frontrunner status by raising money and winning key straw polls – as his father did.

Forbes

 

Ya, it's a small poll with a high % of error (still not enough to put Paul in 2nd place or lower), but it's fun to look at how these things evolve moving forward. Rand Paul 2016.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

Please tell me it is not going to be Rand vs Hillary. Both of them suck.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

It's still really early... I mean we don't know for sure who all is and isn't running quite yet. But as it sits, it's looking pretty heavy on a Clinton VS Paul battle.

[Thanatos 2,847]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Please tell me it is not going to be Rand vs Hillary. Both of them suck.

 

Do you have a better suggestion for Republicans?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

This comparison is dumb as shit, come on Phail.

 

A) Bush was Reagan's VP, not his wife.

B) Bush ran immediately following Reagan's term, he didn't wait eight years because someone else beat him out for the Republican ticket and then try to run.

C) Everyone felt awesome about anything connected to Reagan because the Cold War had just been won.

 

It's not just Benghazi, it's also shit like, "Bill and I were broke." Uh huh. Completely out of touch with America. If the Republicans let Hillary win, I'm going to frankly be shocked. They'd have to put up Sarah Palin to lose to Hillary.

 

I would put serious thought into leaving if either of them became president. I could not fathom and justifiably raise my son in a country being shaped by those two walking justifications for abortion.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

 

 

Ya... Like.. what? If Rand was crying about being broke and trying to relate to Americans by saying that. Absolutely call him out on his BS. But, he hasn't said anything of the like.

 

That was definitely refreshing about Ron, and a reason I was so allured by him and his politics. But in the words of you, Phail and others.. He was seen as 'insane' or 'crazy'. As you mentioned, he was completely unelectable for the Presidency. Which again, was OK for what he was doing. But you can only sit back and concede defeat so long... Somebody had to take the eyes opened by Ron Paul and run with it.

 

I never agreed 100% with Ron.. I definitely don't with Rand... But if you see a better option, I would love to hear it. Also, I know Vin has the same reservations you do about the "sheep in wolves clothing", but I would really like to hear why that is, in your opinion. I think his opinion boiled down to just ' a bad feeling ' . Kinda disappointing, but I hope you have more.

 

Beyond him playing the political game of America and having a solid shot at actually being elected -- that is.

 

 

 

The one and only person I have done tons of research on and came away impressed with is Elizabeth Warren. I will be upset when the Dems put forth a candidate like Hillary and don't give the candidate that is actually intelligent, thought provoking, caring, inspiring, and strong a shot. Those are works I have not used for a politician ever, not all of them together. Unless she gaffe's and does it big I can not see any real negative about her. The republicans are only down by one legit candidate since the Dems have one and right now I see no Republican that is legit. Although anybody trotted out from the GOP will be as shitty as Clinton so the question becomes would you rather have AIDS or Cancer ?

[seanbrock 1,684]

I like how republican candidates have been for so many years...."Is there anyone better?" I think it's pretty clear what they're about. They want to break down social equality and insert 'God' into all our lives whether we like it or not and line theirs and their campaign contributors pockets. Are the democrats any better? Slightly, they're basically the same except they're not as hateful and racist. That's why I refuse to vote for either party. I don't care who says it's a wasted vote. Voting for somebody who sucks because supposedly there's no alternative is a wasted vote.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I like how republican candidates have been for so many years...."Is there anyone better?" I think it's pretty clear what they're about. They want to break down social equality and insert 'God' into all our lives whether we like it or not and line theirs and their campaign contributors pockets. Are the democrats any better? Slightly, they're basically the same except they're not as hateful and racist. That's why I refuse to vote for either party. I don't care who says it's a wasted vote. Voting for somebody who sucks because supposedly there's no alternative is a wasted vote.

 

I don't disagree. I "wasted my vote" on Gary Johnson in 2012 and I'm damn proud of it. But the Republican Party is changing, whether the social conservatives like it or not. In 10-15 years, the grumpy old people who worship God and condemn the evilness that is gays and marijuana (who comprise so much of the voting population) will be dead, and the party will move more toward the center socially. In the meantime, Republicans will continue losing general elections (they've lost the popular vote 5 out of the last 6 elections) and wonder why.

[Vin+ 3,121]

I don't think we'll see another Republican in office until at least 2020. I think people are underestimating just how little goodwill they've engendered in the voting populace. I don't think two years is going to be enough to change things.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

I don't think we'll see another Republican in office until at least 2020. I think people are underestimating just how little goodwill they've engendered in the voting populace. I don't think two years is going to be enough to change things.

 

To an extent I concur, because of 2 things:

 

1) Americans realize there is a bigger problem in Congress than in the White House.

2) Americans place blame on Republicans for the political gridlock.

 

Look at Bill Clinton's presidency. It's considered a success because the President and Congress were actually willing to compromise. Shit got done. The same thing happened with Bush, but that was more out of post-9/11 fear.

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

Do you have a better suggestion for Republicans?

Joe the Plumber.

 

Or me.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I think the bigger issue with Republicans winning elections is their lack of diverse candidates and, subsequently (to an extent), the lack of minority voters they attract as a result. You can't win general elections on the white vote alone anymore, and Republicans haven't exactly endeared themselves to minorities lately. I mean, this is the party who's annual CPAC conference featured a panel called something along the lines of "What to do when you're called a racist, but aren't" and who held conferences featuring tips on how to speak to women. It's theater of the absurd.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Phailadelphia

[blotsfan 2,112]

Hooray! Rand Paul is trash!

 

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/27/rand-paul-reaches-out-to-evangelicals-ov

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

He will probably regret those words in the future. Not only the moral crisis bit, but more so the not keeping religion out of government bit. He's always been pretty traditional in his views of marriage and what not though, so it isn't new or surprising. As long as he doesn't allow his personal belief to dictate law, I don't think it's really that big of a deal that he believes marriage is a man and woman.

 

He has to stick to allowing the states decide that though IMO. Give that power to the people... If he takes it into his own hands, that would be a very very bad move.

[blotsfan 2,112]

He has to stick to allowing the states decide that though IMO. Give that power to the people... If he takes it into his own hands, that would be a very very bad move.

I refuse to aknowledge that argument unless people admit that it was wrong for Eisenhower to force schools to let black people in.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

VERY VERY different scenarios.

At the time, Brown v Board of Education had already been ruled on. Segregation in schools was completely and undoubtedly stricken down. States then defied the law by not taking heed of the courts decision. Eisenhower was merely doing his job by interfering and upholding the law.

If the Supreme Court were to do with the same thing with gay marriage (something I support, btw), of course the "let states decide" policy doesn't really work. He couldn't have that position and steadfastly defy the supreme court...

And the court is taking steps to actually making that decision... So it might all be moot in the near future.

[blotsfan 2,112]

All I'm reading is "if a lot of people want to take away rights from a minority, that's fine with me."

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Of course of you do, because I obliterated your original point and it's easier for you to say that rather than actually argue in favor of Big Government.

As much power out of federal governments hands is best. Pretending like they have authority over things they do not is a dangerous precedent and not something I will advocate for. Again, hopefully the SCOTUS hears the arguments for the constitutionality of it all, makes the right decision, and takes it out of the hands of the White House completely. The office of the Presidency has more than enough charges of abuse of power, we don't need to find excuses to add to that list.

[Cherry 1,302]

I think Paul is just catering to the right-wing religious folk who believe America is spiritually in the toilet. He's probably not shifting right, just playing the people for votes.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I think Paul is just catering to the right-wing religious folk who believe America is spiritually in the toilet. He's probably not shifting right, just playing the people for votes.

Ya, a lot of people don't like that though, and it's understandable. He obviously had a big voter base that he inherited from his father... But he has taken so many concessions that his father never did to cater to the political elite and actually MAYBE become electable that it has turned many devout followers off of him. Although if you are for the Constitution, a strong national defense that doesn't include invading the entire world, and liberty... there really aren't that many choices, if any, that are better.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Of course of you do, because I obliterated your original point and it's easier for you to say that rather than actually argue in favor of Big Government.

 

As much power out of federal governments hands is best. Pretending like they have authority over things they do not is a dangerous precedent and not something I will advocate for. Again, hopefully the SCOTUS hears the arguments for the constitutionality of it all, makes the right decision, and takes it out of the hands of the White House completely. The office of the Presidency has more than enough charges of abuse of power, we don't need to find excuses to add to that list.

 

Here is my reasoning:

 

Gay people are legally second class citizens in the US.

 

This is a bad thing.

 

Many states aren't willing to get their shit together to stop this.

 

This is also a bad thing.

 

States rights are not a valid excuse for having government run discrimination. If these States were so opposed to having the federal government stay out of their shit, they wouldn't force the issue by having ass-backwards laws ensuring legal discrimination against a minority group.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

Here is my reasoning:

 

Gay people are legally second class citizens in the US.

 

This is a bad thing.

 

Many states aren't willing to get their shit together to stop this.

 

This is also a bad thing.

 

States rights are not a valid excuse for having government run discrimination. If these States were so opposed to having the federal government stay out of their shit, they wouldn't force the issue by having ass-backwards laws ensuring legal discrimination against a minority group.

1. The first thing you say. Yes, that is a bad thing.

 

2. And then the logic falls apart. You realize that even though states are slowly recognizing gay rights and allowing for same sex marriage... They are doing so in part DIRECTLY AGAINST FEDERAL POLICY. States have valiantly fought against the federal government in regards to DOMA which gives permission to states to both define marriage as 1 man and 1 woman (section 3) and to allow not recognize same sex marriage even if coming frm a state that does recognize it (section 2).

 

When you say "many states aren't willing to get their shit together".. You realize that they are enacting rights provided to them on the federal level, do you not? The government run discrimination you speak of... It's coming from the federal government. Hence why I say they need to leave it completely to the states. You remove DOMA (section 3 has been struck down in federal court a couple years ago) completely and you no longer allow for states to cower under the protection of big brother.

 

The federal government is protecting bigots. I would assume you aren't a fan of that from from your posts, which only leads me to believe that you don't completely understand how this movement is working or making progress.

 

More than 30 states validate and recognize same sex marriage even though the federal government has given them the ability to be bigots and discriminate against the ones the people you are voicing out to protect.

 

The state level of politics has shown greater ambition to make change and recognize the rights of all than the federal government EVER has. The progress we see in regards to gay rights starts at the most local of governments and trickles UPWARDS to the federal government.

 

People begin speaking to their local governments.. Word spreads they want change. Local governments go to state governments for them to enact change. And eventually enough states come together to put into motion federal law for all. What you think is happening is the direct opposite and a trickle down of policy -- which is just not the case.

 

The change you and I are both big proponents of... It's going to happen. But not because the federal government, overnight, had a change of heart and automatically forces states to recognize same sex marriage.

 

The change you and I want is going to happen because there is a fundamental change at the lowest levels of our society that will overthrow federal law that protects bigots. Big Brother will come around, but only because smaller local and state governments are pressuring them into it.

 

This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 

Of the people... by the people... for the people.

 

That's how government should work. And that's how this country will eventually provide freedoms to all of which they are currently denying.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

I agree. It's very good on the states that have allowed gay rights. I'm just saying it'd be a good thing if the government said to the rest of the states "hey, you're no longer allowed to be shitty. Gay marriage is legal everywhere."

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Right, but as I stated, they are busy enabling bigots instead. You want the Feds to be the hero when they have been the villain since Clinton authorized DOMA -- on this issue at the very least. It's going to take the states who have already passed it and a few where it's more contested but not necessarily banned to put the pressure on the Feds and the other States who refuse to acknowledge such rights.

You were making this out to be a "We can't let the states decide because they are doing it wrong" issue. And wanted the Feds to step in to handle it. However, the Feds are the ones enabling the states who do have it banned to keep it banned. Just backwards logic.

I appreciate your stance and desire for liberty, however.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Favre4Ever