Time for a Rand Paul Thread

Nuh..uh. Open your eyes Bumpo, as of yesterday, Paul is trending better than Hillary in swing states. Ain't it a shame.

 

Some people are showing me that they may be considered a functional illiterate. Obviously they can't read, or their reading compression skills are nonexistent.

 

Who would that be? Lol. Telekat and I didn't mention anything about gender being the "most important" thing as you claimed.

 

You keep saying this . . .

"it appears to me that you believe the most important qualification is simply being female."

^^^

No one said that, so I don't know why you keep making this claim. Both Telekat and I said it would be nice to have a qualified female candidate become POTUS.

 

You started out by saying "it's time for a female president". Nothing about a qualified woman, just a woman. Qualifications were never considered until I raised the issue. It is clear that you were only concerned with gender. Period.

 

You can't always get what you want.

The ideal candidate is subjective and imaginary, but the actual choice you are given is ruthlessly circumscribed by the duopoly and the fat cats who bankroll whoever best kowtows to their interests (while they hide far more often lately, courtesy of their bought political minions.)

Limit the amount of money used to buy politicians, and you will have destroyed the two-party stranglehold on governance.

 

Oh please, that is not true at all. I said it would be nice to have a female candidate. By that, I meant qualified, obviously, as there are already female candidates, like Hillary, amongst others. So, you jumped to conclusions and made accusations instead of asking for clarification.

 

Not one mention of "qualified".

 

I posted a link earlier to some female candidates. There were at least 4 or 5 women candidates who have announced they are running and they are independents. One of them has some pretty good ideas, although I totally disagree with her on her ideas about the military. Now, for me, that is a very important issue, so I could not vote for her because of her stance on that particular issue. Other than that one issue, I really liked her ideas.

I'll go try and find her and post her here. BRB.

 

Yep, they are usually the people who were for something before they were against it.

 

Here it is. She seems like a good candidate, except I don't like her stance on the military, which I think is extremely important because I don't believe that a lot of other countries (especially in the ME) want "peace." I like that she is in the center though.


Declared 2016 Independent Presidential Candidate

Executive Consultant
Lynn Sandra Kahn

Lynn Sandra Kahn
Born: unknown
Lynn Sandra Kahn for President



Dr Sandra Lynn Kahn, PhD, has built a successful career as an executive consultant. In her work, she has been responsible for strategic planning in a number of diverse issues, including workforce development, aviation, and justice reform. Now running as an Independent candidate for President, she runs her campaign around the slogan “Fix government, build peace”, and proposes seven key points necessary for achieving these goals. Proposing that people innately desire a world free from war for themselves and their families, she argues that the more challenging of her tasks by far is to fix government, and devotes six entrants of her seven-track strategy to that pursuit. The remaining point concerns itself with building peace, the “easier” of her ambitions.

Dr Kahn borrows from both sides of the political fence in the content of her proposals. Sounding positively conservative, she advocates the need to reduce the cost of government by 30% via the elimination of bureaucratic waste, and to return the money saved directly to the people and their communities. She speaks of a responsible government built on lean inter-agency communications and citizen input. On the other hand, while acknowledging the importance of promoting business growth, she moves to the left in calling for a closer eye on workers' safety and environmental protection. Additionally, she seeks to accomplish her overall goal – building peace – by streamlining government to that purpose, but hers is a decidedly diplomacy-oriented pursuit of peace. She calls for disarmament talks and ceasefires, citizen summits and community dialogues, with less emphasis on military strength and projection than might please a conservative ear.

In the end, with input from all sides and ideas that never stray far into extreme territory, Dr Kahn's policies are comfortably centrist and unlikely to offend any side to a vast degree. Conservatives might object to her environmental concerns and idealistic notions of only modestly armed peace, while liberals would be more likely to arch an eyebrow at her calls for streamlining government – something often taken as code for reducing its size. But there is nothing in her platform to drive voters away in droves, and ultimately, her biggest problem may be the one she shares with all third-party and unaffiliated candidates: Extremely limited name recognition.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since I said not Hillary, I thought that would be a given. Obviously, if gender was the only thing that mattered, I would be cheerleading for Hillary, no?

- - - Updated - - -

So, do you have anything to add to this thread? Or just more arguing over semantics?

 

I hope that his enthusiasts are not so naïve that they don't realize that the GOP fat cats won't allow Randy to be nominated by the GOP.

As much as he's been flip-flopping on refusing to kowtow to Netanyahu's foreign policy Rx for the US, or being averse to throwing scads of taxpayer money at the pentagon, and other such GOP establishment boilerplate dogma, the powerbrokers in the Republican Party will never trust him, no matter how much he appears to abandon libertarian principles.

Billionaire toady supreme, Turtle McConnell needs to pay back Randy for carrying him in his las election in Kentucky, but he isn't about to offend those to whom he is answerable by venturing beyond lip service: "I'm going to be helpful to him in any way I can be, but I'm not going to be tromping around in New Hampshire and Iowa, I can tell you that!"

​

.

 

your only objection to her was that she's a "hillbilly".

I just responded to your comments. Period.

 

Oh God, look, go argue with someone else, will you? I want to talk about candidates, not your personal issues.

 

You're funny.

 

Rand will likely win the primary but lose the general election to Chafee.

 

The Middle Eastern nation that concerns me most re:war is Israel under Likud, and my concern is that President Hillary Clinton will pander to Netanyahu's eagerness to see the US in another one. He was a cheerleader for Bush/Cheney's disastrous Iraq fiasco, and Clinton voted to surrender the power to contrive that war to them.

Of course, any Republican, excluding Paul, would allow US foreign policy to be similarly subverted.

 

Hillbilly is a joke . . . Hillary plus Bill equals hillbilly. Get it? You must be great fun at parties.

 

You must be female, only a woman would ask a question like that. Reason being it's a completely illogical question, it's a matter of opinion and thus unprovable. I could ramble on for pages and be completely right, that won't keep you from disagreeing, thus why bother. I don't bother arguing with irrational people.

 

Rand Paul’s Home State Relies On Government Programs He’s Vowed To Dismantle



http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/07/3643710/rand-paul-kentucky-economy/



Rand Paul will formally announce today in Louisville, the largest city in his home state of Kentucky, that he will seek the Republican nomination for president. But what Paul won’t tell the crowds of Kentuckians and others gathered in the city to watch his announcement is that his policies would further devastate the people already suffering in one of the worst economies in the nation.
Though Paul has generally expressed suspicion that poor people are cheating or being preyed upon by government programs, Kentuckians, who have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, rely heavily on programs Paul has vowed to dismantle, including Obamacare and food stamps.
Rand Paul has said he will not rest until Obamacare is 100 percent repealed, preferring to rely on “freedom” in the health insurance marketplace. But Kentuckians living in the rural parts of the state, which ranks among the most unhealthy in the nation, were among the groups that benefited most from the health care law. Before the health care law was signed, a staggering 640,000 people, or 15 percent of the state, lacked health insurance in Kentucky.
Gov. Steve Beshear (D) was an advocate for the law from the beginning. As political controversy followed the implementation of the law, he urged his fellow Southern, red state governors to put the health of their citizens above politics. “There’s a huge disconnect between the rank partisanship of national politics and the outlook of governors whose job it is to help beleaguered families, strengthen work forces, attract companies and create a balanced budget,” the governor wrote in a New York Times op-ed.
In May 2014, after the first open enrollment, Beshear noted that over 421,000 Kentuckians — almost one in ten state residents — signed up for coverage through the state exchange. “I see the ACA’s positive impact first-hand in my home state, a place whose collective poor health has long been jeopardizing the lives and financial security of hard-working families who can’t seem to get ahead,” he wrote in a Huffington Post column in which he told Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to “get out of the way” of the law.
He also noted that some 330,000 of Kentucky’s uninsured, mostly working poor, qualified for Medicaid under its expansion.
Kentucky was the only Southern state that agreed to both expand Medicaid and set up its own exchange. And both measures had positive impacts on the state’s economy. A study conducted before the implementation found that the expansion of Medicaid would inject $15.6 billion in Kentucky’s economy over eight years, create 17,000 jobs and help the budget improve by $802.4 million – all vital steps forward in a state that recently had the sixth worst unemployment rate in the nation.
Kynect, the state exchange, is popular enough among Kentuckians that Paul has said publicly that the state could keep its exchange, even if Obamacare were to be repealed.


Paul has also made clear that he would take down the social safety net as president, even comparing food stamps to slavery. But nearly 900,000 Kentuckians — one in five residents — struggle to get by on the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), even as benefits have shrunk over the past few years. Meanwhile, food banks in Kentucky have picked up the slack; 56 percent of organizations in the state had to serve more people this year than last, as more than 600,000 people visited food banks in 2014, according to the Kentucky Association of Food Banks.
Paul believes food stamp recipients are abusing the system to “buy junk food” and “McDonalds,” but 91 percent of Kentucky food bank clients reported that they bought unhealthy food because it was the cheapest way to feed their families.

Paul also opposes setting a minimum wage, let alone increasing it. About 49,000 Kentuckians earn the federal minimum wage of $7.25 or less, but even that falls short of how much it costs to live in the state. According to MIT’s living wage calculator, a Kentucky family making minimum wage would still be stuck deep in poverty.
Nevertheless, Paul has dismissed concerns over poverty, asserting that “the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.”





Fat chance that those people will benefit from losing those government services.

 

.........

Wow.

 

Impressed by my deductive reasoning huh?

 

No, your blatant sexism.

 

Last year I made a map of a Rand Paul/Tim Scott landslide:

 

I love that the left is so scared they are already attacking Rand. Sky is falling progressives are too damn funny