Rand Paul for President!
Definitely a better choice than Hillary. That's for sure:
Rand Paul for President!
Definitely a better choice than Hillary. That's for sure:
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.
Re: Rand Paul for President!
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.
Hank PymWhile 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.
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.
Originally posted by Q99...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.
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.
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?
*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 117both 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.
*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.)