Rand Paul for President!

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.

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

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)