Time for a Rand Paul Thread

too funny, keep trying, no ones buying it

Rand is going no where, no one is interested, you can tell by the number of Rand threads started....



.

 

So then you're impressed with my honesty, well thank you.

 

There's a larger than you think liberal backing for Rand. He has a strong young voter base.
He has voted to help students with their loans. Blocked by the liberal senate
He has opposed Obamas broad NSA collection of data on innocent Americans. Something the young people are with him on. They realize obama lied about its just metadata. They seen Obamas Clapper lying to congress
He came up against Obamas assassination of young americans with drones and Obamas war mongering double tapping first responders.
He is for legalizing marijuana. Like most of the young people watching Obams war drugs place people in corp jails
I think the youth has noticed that Obamacare is laid on the backs of these young people. On top of student loans piling up. They had enough.
He is against american policing the globe. Which most young Americans agree with.
I think the left will notice too late that he will have a strong draw with the young voters out there that have seen what a Bush, Clinton, Obama presidency gave them. They seen enough lies already and looking for real change. Not Obushma

 

I award one Internet to this poster

 

Because we're not supposed to discriminate based upon gender or race or or or or or or.
That sword cuts both ways. If you want people to shut up about it then let's do that. I'm all for it. So stop saying"we need x historically oppressed group of any sort" and instead say "we need the most qualified candidate" period full stop. If that happens to be an x then well and good. If not then well and good. Because none of that (*)(*)(*)(*) matters and since it doesn't matter, if you bring it up you're working an angle.

- - - Updated - - -

Put forth your magical unicorn of a candidate then. I'm willing to listen to you explain that persons qualifications and why they exceed or meet those of others. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd go.

 

1) what's her degree in? Who did she consult for? Etc. Not a great cv there.
2) disarmament is pie in the sky. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Anyone who thinks you can is either foolish or trying to sell you something.
3)I like the gov. draw down idea. That's nice.
4) too much emphasis on community dialogue etc. Sounds like Obama. No.

Got a better choice?

 

She sounds like an idealist. That would be fine if our enemies, or those who mean us harm respond to idealists, but they don't.

 

Hers is better than a lot of the others. Lol. I agree about disarmament.

 

Not denying that she'd be better than a (*)(*)(*)(*) sandwich or a giant (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). But that's not what was offered. What was offered was the most qualified candidate. She ain't it. Got another?

 

That's a matter of opinion, and completely subjective. I said that I thought she sounded like a fairly good candidate. Go do your own research! How in the heck would I know what you want in a candidate?

 

Unfortunately, elections are not a choice of whom would be an ideal office holder, but who is the least offensive. As a libertarian, I do not know if Paul is worth voting for or not. He has defiantly sold out on some of the key issues, but it is probably unrealistic to believe at this point anyone who represented real change could be elected, and if they were would be promptly assassinated.
The most pressing issue as I see it today is the countries steady progression in the direction of a police state and the nullification of the Constitution. I do not know if Paul has said or done anything to make me believe he would reverse our march towards a police state and stand up for the rights of the individual.

 

As a pragmatist, I prefer the demonstrably superior extant examples of governance - all democracies that intelligently regulate capitalism and maintain conscientious welfare programmes.

In the US, I'm assuming that Brownback's Red State Model is the best example of an alternative, self-proclaimed "experiment" with the actual application of it's libertarian/theocratic ideological dogma. It's a disaster.

Much as I found some of Randy's notions appealing before he started abandoning them, a major reason that he will not be the GOP nominee is that the oligarchs will not permit it, They bankroll those who will kowtow to their acquisitive agenda and are willing to defer to Netanyahu's foreign policy dictates for the US.

The government-engineered redistribution of the nation's wealth into the coffers of a powerful elite that has been going on for decades is now augmented by their political toadies having licensed their master to manipulate elections clandestinely to conceal their self-interested agenda from the public.

The most pressing issue for the US today is the chronic exploitation of the populace to satisfy the insatiable avarice of the precious few.

We have ample historical paradigms that confirm the consequences of such an extreme concentration of wealth.

Ayn Rand's America is a fantasy; we need to deal with the real one.

 

Sound like a bunch of liberal nonsense to me. Fact is that people are looking for an alternative to the failed policies of both major parties.
They are tired of a system that rewards the unproductive, the lawbreakers, the police state, the corruption, and is producing a government that is completely unaccountable to its citizens.

It may be possible that the powers that be have assessed the situation and think that moderate change to reduce public outrage is preferable to allowing the present situation to continue to the point of public insurrection in which they may loose considerable political control.

Personally I would prefer to see them push the police state to the point of real rebellion in order to implement real and lasting change, but logically if I were in their position, I would realize that we are heading in that direction and do what is needed now to prevent it from happening.

 

So what's your stance here? What MORE can we do to help poor people? We have social service programs to help the poor. They can get a free education and better themselves. We offer all KINDS of things to help. What more do you want? You want America to become a socialist state so that the "elite" are even MORE rich? Because when you have socialism, only the government has money. Everyone else is a peon. Do you want to kill the American dream or something?

I am all for helping the poor, but not at the expense of freedom.

 

We were talking about the best qualified. You offered a woman you yourself claim not to support because you don't agree with her fp. You offered someone you claim is not the best candidate as the best candidate. Headdesk

 

Sounds like the usual Angry White Guys stuff to me. Despite a vocal minority being alienated from America, it still works as well as any alternative, and the democratic process makes improvement possible.

Panicking and attempting to impose some airy-fairy pipe dream upon everyone might be assuaged by moving to Kansas, but most Americans do not want to find themselves in Brownbackistan.

Again, as a pragmatist, I look to extant paradigms, and request alternative examples to first-world nations that demonstrate superior results, not pie-in-the-sky ideological potions.

 

As a pragmatist, a realist, and a moderate, I support the democratic system, wish to address its inevitable inadequacies, and am concerned about the governmental redistribution of the nation's wealth into the pockets of an elite who thereby wield inordinate political power and influence. That is very unhealthy for America, and no nation with such an enormous economic chasm between the few and the many has proved to be a stable one.

I would demand transparency in political contributions as a start, and limit the durations of campaigns as a way of reducing the inordinate control a few hyper-acquisitive individuals exert over them.

Again, of the roughly 200 nations on earth, if you could pick one that you rather the United States emulate, which is it?



.

 

Who would be your choice? I can tell it's not the NeoCon hawks.

 

I would not choose any nation to emulate as an alternative to those already the most successful - western democracies, Japan, Israel - in the quality of life achieved and maintained for the preponderance of their people, nor would I ever advocate for any airy-fairy alternative with no demonstrable record.

 

I didn't "offer" anybody. I just thought she was an interesting candidate, and an independent and a woman.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I love my country. That's why I wouldn't vote for a liar and a cheat as president.

 

You are free to call any politician that you don't want to vote for whatever you feel like, of course.

If you feel the American people repeatedly elect confirmed liars and cheats, you have a very low estimation of the American people.

 

Well, the problem is that politicians lie and the people are too focused on "their side winning" to really look at these candidates and what they do.

 

So, you know better, and the American people vote out of ignorance if they don't vote for whomever you think they should.

I prefer to regard the electorate as having to make informed choices between flawed individuals. Deifying one and demonizing the other is never realistic.

 

Well, yes, some of them do vote out of ignorance. Some people will only vote for their party, regardless of who the candidate is or what the candidate has done. To be realistic, you have to get past "party politics."

- - - Updated - - -

You know . . . this is NOT a game, and there should be no "teams." Elections are important, and only those candidates who actually put country before political party should be considered.

 

If a Republican candidate espoused comprehensive immigration reform, ending gender discrimination in marriage contracts, universal health coverage, and an emphasis on reducing rampant military spending in favour of international diplomatic initiatives, he would not receive his party's support. And the reverse criteria would apply to a Democrat.

Given such dual processes of homogenization, it is hardly surprising that some Americans express allegiance to one party platform, and some to the other.

You can only get past "party politics" when the duopoly's stranglehold is broken, but it is rigidly maintained by the nation's oligarchs who bankroll Rs and Ds that serve their interests, and the two parties have an efficient filtration system to eliminate the aberrations. Offering the variety of multiple choices would better achieve representational governance, but powerful, vested interests would find that inconvenient and difficult to control.

Only when wealth no longer controls candidates, parties, and elections can viable alternatives arise.