Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Definitely a better choice than Hillary. That's for sure:


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238563-rand-paul-releases-first-anti-clinton-tv-ad

Ew.

RAND PAUL 2016 WOOHOO!!!

http://i.imgur.com/JqYTmjn.gif

No thank you.

This thread will turn into an uninformed sludge throwing contest quickly.
///
While Rand is pretty hard-nosed on his beliefs, he's probably the best bet to get anti-Hillary dems. Chris Christie is probably the only more left friendly GOP candidate.

christie is nothing-friendly. he shows a bit of appreciation to obama for immediate emergency funds for hurricane sandy and tells off one of your precious foxnews muppets and the new narrative is that he's in obama's lap. but he is a completely corrupt egomaniac so i suppose i should just be content that your ilk dislike him, no matter the reason.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
This thread will turn into an uninformed sludge throwing contest quickly.

I wish Maizuru was still here.

I think he might have committed suicide after Ron Paul lost the last election, though.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I wish Maizuru was still here.

I think he might have committed suicide after Ron Paul lost the last election, though.
I think he abandoned Ron Paul when he decided he understood what being an "anarcho-capitalist" was.

Whats wrong with Rand Paul now? I mean compared to Hilary he looks like Mother Teresa.

Originally posted by Star428
Definitely a better choice than Hillary. That's for sure:



Pffthehe. Why would I want the party of economic incompetence and opposition to civil rights in the White House? Give me Hillary any day over a group who'd cut services, remove health care, drive up the debt, crash the economy, and try and tell people who they can and can't marry all at the same time.


He's not as good as Jeb Bush, for that matter.




Which is really a 'damning with faint praise' statement.


Most of the Republicans are so focused on catering to the far right, that 'moderate' for them normally translates into 'catering to the somewhat-right part of their own party, and occasionally some independents.'

They've really given up on cross-over appeal on the whole- with the exception of Jeb, who's at least got his immigration stances to potentially appeal to hispanic voters.

Might as as well vote for Mickey Mouse.

Mickey would be preferable to Hillary. In fact, I think pretty much anyone would be.

Originally posted by Q99
Pffthehe. Why would I want the party of economic incompetence and opposition to civil rights in the White House? Give me Hillary any day over a group who'd cut services, remove health care, drive up the debt, crash the economy, and try and tell people who they can and can't marry all at the same time.


He's not as good as Jeb Bush, for that matter.




Which is really a 'damning with faint praise' statement.


Most of the Republicans are so focused on catering to the far right, that 'moderate' for them normally translates into 'catering to the somewhat-right part of their own party, and occasionally some independents.'

They've really given up on cross-over appeal on the whole- with the exception of Jeb, who's at least got his immigration stances to potentially appeal to hispanic voters. ...you realize republicans created the American civil rights movement right? Also Concervativates on the whole usually lower the debt, because they cut spending. Everything else you said sounds like some guy who gets all his info from comedians pretending to be journalists.

The response to me was highly uninformed. Paul is strong on leftist issues like staying out of armed conflicts, looser drug laws & American civil liberties. His biggest issues he will clash on is probably Israel, as I believe he's a strong supporter.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
...you realize republicans created the American civil rights movement right?
Yes and "Republicans" also freed the slaves. The differences between the Republican party of today and of the past are so great that they're essentially different entities. When it comes to social issues, modern Republicans inherit more ideological baggage from the Dixiecrats who fought desegregation tooth and nail than they do from the Republicans of Lincoln and TR that emancipated the slaves and helmed the progressive era.

Maybe if you take a parody sampling, it would be like me calling all Dem's paranoid big brother state pushers.

I do find it odd that Republicans get called racists for not treating blacks as second class citizens but w/e.

*sigh* This thread just reminds me of why I wished political parties would just die in Hell. Maybe then elections wouldn't so easily be boiled down to bipartisan pissing contests that encourage (some) voters to make decisions based on a select few issues (sometimes as few as one) simply because their stances on them happen to be dichotomously tied to one side or the other of some political color spectrum (or "core principals" as they call them), regardless of whether or not the remaining agenda is in the nation's best interest.

Besides the Emancipation Proclamation (which still required House agreement), I can't remember the last time we actually benefited from it. Maybe if they continued to do that kind of good today, or at least had some incentive to, I might actually have some faith in their prolonged existence. Wishful thinking, right?

If for any reason I should feel differently, please, by ALL means, tell me. I'd f**king LOVE to have a good reason to be wrong about this. (Seriously.)

*sigh* yourself, dude. If you have a problem with this thread then don't read it or reply (or just report it) . Just like I didn't read the rest of your reply after I read your first sentence or two.


Bottom line is I can post whatever I like as long as I'm not breaking any forum rules so I suggest you get over it.

Originally posted by Sacred 117
*sigh* This thread just reminds me of why I wished political parties would just die in Hell. Maybe then elections wouldn't so easily be boiled down to bipartisan pissing contests that encourage (some) voters to make decisions based on a select few issues (sometimes as few as one) simply because their stances on them happen to be dichotomously tied to one side or the other of some political color spectrum (or "core principals" as they call them), regardless of whether or not the remaining agenda is in the nation's best interest.

Besides the Emancipation Proclamation (which still required House agreement), I can't remember the last time we actually benefited from it. Maybe if they continued to do that kind of good today, or at least had some incentive to, I might actually have some faith in their prolonged existence. Wishful thinking, right?

If for any reason I should feel differently, please, by ALL means, tell me. I'd f**king LOVE to have a good reason to be wrong about this. (Seriously.) both parties have shades of grey making them up, and the fact you can't find someone who is 100% ideologically the same as you really isn't caused by the two party system. Honestly the 2 parties are more apt to banquet halls than think tanks.

I will not vote for Hillary, for sure. Rand Paul? Probably not.


Who will I vote for? I'd have to check "I side with" as the candidates start lining up.


Take a look at this wikipedia article for an idea of what we have to choose from with the GOP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016


I'm pretty sure, by this point, that Hillary will be the Dems big choice (easily).


I just don't see a strong GOP contender. I'd rather we elect a Libertarian or Independent candidate, however. Hell, even a green party member.


Edit - lol, Donald Trump. At least his evilness and crazy is quite visible.

Ben Carson? I should learn more about him.

Originally posted by Q99
... Why would I want the party of economic incompetence and opposition to civil rights in the White House? ...

The Demarcates are already in the white house.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Democrats are already in the white house.

Hillary has way too much money for any Democrat to really challenge her in the primaries, especially since she'll be rounding up fvck tons of donor money as well.

I like Elizabeth Warren, though. I wish she'd run.

Originally posted by Star428
*sigh* yourself, dude. If you have a problem with this thread then don't read it or reply (or just report it) . Just like I didn't read the rest of your reply after I read your first sentence or two.


Bottom line is I can post whatever I like as long as I'm not breaking any forum rules so I suggest you get over it.

This has nothing to do with you. Had you kept reading before shooting your mouth off, you might have known that.


Originally posted by Henry_Pym
both parties have shades of grey making them up, and the fact you can't find someone who is 100% ideologically the same as you really isn't caused by the two party system. Honestly the 2 parties are more apt to banquet halls than think tanks.

Yeah, I see what you're saying, and it's because of those "gray shades" that I'm mostly ambivalent to both of them in general. Hell, it's not as if I would expect anyone to agree wholeheartedly on every single thing. No two people on Earth are perfectly identical, after all. I just feel as if some forget to vote for the individual rather than the party, but this could be more my personal experience than anything.

Originally posted by Sacred 117
Yeah, I see what you're saying, and it's because of those "gray shades" that I'm mostly ambivalent to both of them in general. Hell, it's not as if I would expect anyone to agree wholeheartedly on every single thing. No two people on Earth are perfectly identical, after all. I just feel as if some forget to vote for the individual rather than the party, but this could be more my personal experience than anything. I think your last point is more media portrayals than fact. Outside of a few outliers like "border security before amnesty" or "budget issues/ shutting down the government".

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I think your last point is more media portrayals than fact. Outside of a few outliers like "border security before amnesty" or "budget issues/ shutting down the government".

Like I said, that last part is mostly speculative. I know better than to declare it as absolute.

Originally posted by Sacred 117
Yeah, I see what you're saying, and it's because of those "gray shades" that I'm mostly ambivalent to both of them in general. Hell, it's not as if I would expect anyone to agree wholeheartedly on every single thing. No two people on Earth are perfectly identical, after all. I just feel as if some forget to vote for the individual rather than the party, but this could be more my personal experience than anything.





In 2012, I was best aligned with Ron Paul. But I only agreed on like....83% of the issues with him. Some of the issues we disagreed on were very important and fundamental ones.

Which issues specifically if I may ask?

Anyone other then Hillary and Jeb.

Why do you dislike Jeb?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Why do you dislike Jeb?

We've had enough Bushs and Clintons.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Which issues specifically if I may ask?


There are far too many issues to consider, specifically. That's an insurmountable task. It would take weeks to be specific. I'll list 3:

Gold Standard is not the best idea for money. Perhaps a diversified precious metals/materials standard would be better than a gold standard and this is something I believe he has considered. But a pure gold standard is actually a bad idea. This is economics 101...very fundamental and basic stuff you'd learn in economics. It's like washing your hands before surgery for doctors: that's how basic this is.


Also, I think the US Government should provide a Universal Healthcare Option: Ron Paul strongly opposes such an idea.


His take on sexual harassment is difficult to deal with. Harassees are supposed to quit their jobs if they don't like the harassment assuming the harassment is not physical. That's his stance. He believes something obvious like sexual assault in the work place is criminal and will be addressed by the criminal laws. I do agree, somewhat with him...not sure how I feel about people just having to deal with sexual harassment while at work. I believe his stance is that businesses will do well to regulate themselves if they lose too many people from the workplace.

Originally posted by dadudemon
His take on sexual harassment is difficult to deal with. Harassees are supposed to quit their jobs if they don't like the harassment assuming the harassment is not physical. That's his stance.

That's retarded.

Originally posted by snowdragon
We've had enough Bushs and Clintons.


Yeah, I don't really want another Bush in office anymore than I do Hillary although I do agree with Jeb's views on gun rights, for sure. I read somewhere though that Hillary's gun control policies will make Obama look like an amateur in that area. Not sure what Hillary's views are on veterans either. Which is an extremely important subject to me.

Oh, and I know that Rand has an extremely strong belief in God which is very relevant to me. I've had enough of atheistic views and Presidents who seem to show more respect to false gods like "Allah" more than they do the one true god. Enough is enough with that BS. That crap is ruining our country from within.

Originally posted by Sacred 117
*sigh* This thread just reminds me of why I wished political parties would just die in Hell. Maybe then elections wouldn't so easily be boiled down to bipartisan pissing contests that encourage (some) voters to make decisions based on a select few issues (sometimes as few as one) simply because their stances on them happen to be dichotomously tied to one side or the other of some political color spectrum (or "core principals" as they call them), regardless of whether or not the remaining agenda is in the nation's best interest.

Besides the Emancipation Proclamation (which still required House agreement), I can't remember the last time we actually benefited from it. Maybe if they continued to do that kind of good today, or at least had some incentive to, I might actually have some faith in their prolonged existence. Wishful thinking, right?

If for any reason I should feel differently, please, by ALL means, tell me. I'd f**king LOVE to have a good reason to be wrong about this. (Seriously.)



Actually, believe it or not, I read an analysis of the parties over history that concludes that *most* of the time, the two party system encourages compromise, because groups normally have to compromise within their party to get things done, and then the parties need to deal with each other with give and take to do anything big. In a many-party system, the most extreme parties will almost always have a voice, while you'll note there's no extreme left-wing people at all in the US congress, and the extreme right-wing people still have to convince the rest of the Republicans to get anything done.


Things are not standard compared to the history of the parties/politics in the US, though. This party of 'no' stuff (and yes, it is primarily coming from one party) is really gumming things up... and I'll note, even making for increasingly vicious inside-the-party clashes.

Originally posted by Star428
Oh, and I know that Rand has an extremely strong belief in God which is very relevant to me. I've had enough of atheistic views and Presidents who seem to show more respect to false gods like "Allah" more than they do the one true god. Enough is enough with that BS. That crap is ruining our country from within.



Pffhehe. You mean like people making up stuff about Presidents who are, in fact, devout Christians who talk about God pretty often?

Also, Allah is, literally, the translation of the name of the Christian God. Which is also the Jewish God. It's the same God.


There's been no atheist presidents, and anyone who tries to represent a US President as a non-Christian is a flat out liar.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Demarcates are already in the white house.


Funny, that's not what the job numbers or economic numbers say

Austerity kicked the butt of every country that tried it, yet the Republicans push for it like it wasn't a sinking anchor.


Obama's had a comparable growth rate to Reagan, who both had a higher growth rate than Bush 2. Clinton beats everyone.


Since 1961, 42 million private-sector jobs were made under Democratic Presidents, and 24 million under Republican Presidents, even though they'd been in power for similar numbers of years. That's a very significant gap.




Republicans also blocked a measure by Obama's that multiple independent non-partisan analysts agree would have added in the area of one to two million jobs.


Basically, if you look at the numbers... Republicans stink up the place at economics.


The Republicans may tell you they're good at economics, but by past performance and current actions both, they're a distant second.

Originally posted by Star428
Definitely a better choice than Hillary. That's for sure:


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238563-rand-paul-releases-first-anti-clinton-tv-ad
Or Bushwasker.I dont trust Rand though.Unlike his father he is not consistant in what he says and flip flops.Plus he betrayed americans endorcing Romney who is no different than Obama both being part of the eastabishment.Ron like the patriot he is,did not endorce him.

But if worst came to worst,if it was the choice between Bushwacker,Clinton,or Rand i would want Rand in hoping he was just playing their game so he could get elected.I dont think that is the case though the fact he has flip flopped.

I'll toss in that I dislike 'flip flop' being used as an attack. Politicians, when faced with new information, new circumstances, or a different word from their constituents, should not be afraid to examine their positions and change if they think it's more correct.

Now, if it's an about face purely for personal gain/to a worst position, sure, criticize them for that, and if they don't seem to be able to stick to anything, that's bad, but changing positions is itself not necessarily bad.


(I say this in defend of Rand, who I'm not a fan of, but it's a general point I feel fairly strongly about. Better someone willing to change their mind than someone who always sticks to their guns even if they're wrong on something)

Politics aside, don't we have a 2016 thread already? Are we really in need of a thread for each individual candidate, especially this early in the proceedings?

Originally posted by Q99
I'll toss in that I dislike 'flip flop' being used as an attack. Politicians, when faced with new information, new circumstances, or a different word from their constituents, should not be afraid to examine their positions and change if they think it's more correct.

Now, if it's an about face purely for personal gain/to a worst position, sure, criticize them for that, and if they don't seem to be able to stick to anything, that's bad, but changing positions is itself not necessarily bad.


(I say this in defend of Rand, who I'm not a fan of, but it's a general point I feel fairly strongly about. Better someone willing to change their mind than someone who always sticks to their guns even if they're wrong on something)

Rand Paul needs the help of those of us who think our second amendment right to bear arms should never be tampered with and that domestic spying on American citizens needs to be stopped. Just click on the link below and sign the petition to send a message to your senators to vote against the extension of the so-called "Patriot Act" and "Freedom Act". Donations aren't required but are always helpful, of course.

http://www.nagr.org/2015/Rand_PA_Filibuster-p.aspx?pid=3b

Originally posted by dadudemon



In 2012, I was best aligned with Ron Paul. But I only agreed on like....83% of the issues with him. Some of the issues we disagreed on were very important and fundamental ones.


Ron Paul was arguably the best choice last election.

I dunno how he lost actually.
Seems like elections are more like popularity contests.

Rand is pretty awesome, anyone who has a problem with him here just has no clue what they are talking about and are just doing the "LOOK what the republicans did."

He's alright, but he's no Ben Carson.

Originally posted by Mindset
He's alright, but he's no Ben Carson.

I like Ben as well.

Bernie Sanders, bro

Originally posted by Robtard
Bernie Sanders, bro

Why would you even say that?

Have you looked up his political stances?

Originally posted by Robtard
Have you looked up his political stances?

Sorry, can't vote for this bridge looking troll..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Bernie_Sanders.jpg/640px-Bernie_Sanders.jpg

While he's older and looks goofy, you shouldn't base your vote on "who looks hotter" when it comes to the POTUS, imo.

Originally posted by Robtard
While he's older and looks goofy, you shouldn't base your vote on "who looks hotter" when it comes to the POTUS, imo.

Why not, Mindset voted for Obama because he said he was hot.

Look at his political stances and see if there's anything you disagree with before going "no, he's just not sexy enough to be POTUS".

Will do

Originally posted by Robtard
Bernie Sanders, bro

^ This. Bernie seems to be the only person clued on on what the people need, versus what his lobbyists and big business butt-buddies need.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
^ This. Bernie seems to be the only person clued on on what the people need, versus what his lobbyists and big business butt-buddies need.

Welcome back dude, glad your alive!

He's not- I killed him seconds after he made that post.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
He's not- I killed him seconds after he made that post.

Aw damn

Originally posted by Robtard
Bernie Sanders, bro

I don't see him as a good choice because didn't Rand Paul flip flop on certain issues once he got the nomination?

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see him as a good choice because didn't Rand Paul flip flop on certain issues once he got the nomination?

Are you accusing Rand Paul of being a politician?

All I know is I don't want to vote for a guy who flip flops like this.

What did Rand flip about?

Originally posted by Surtur
All I know is I don't want to vote for a guy who flip flops like this.

I guess you are not going to vote for anyone then.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Welcome back dude, glad your alive!

Of course! I just don't work at a place where I can spend time here often.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
He's not- I killed him seconds after he made that post.

Made a liar out of you, further ruining what little streetcred you have.

EVERYBODY GIVE RAND SPEAR A CHANCE, HE GOT YOU MONEY FOR YOUR ACCIDENTS, ITS TIME TO GIVE BACK!