Senator Rand Paul for president in 2016?[W:200]

[polgara]

Hey, my first presidential vote went to Goldwater. He got trounced. I still consider Barry as my political mentor. Between him and Perot, he got trounced twice, they are responsible for my political views today. I am heading off to bed, but before I depart a quick story of how and where I first heard of and got to know who exactly Ross Perot was.

It was back in December of 1969, I was part of Project 404 in Vientiane Laos. Ross fly into Vientiane with a plane load of Christmas Presents for our POW's in Hanoi. Vientiane was the only capital at that time with an American Embassy and a North Vietnamese Embassy. He strolled up to the North Vietnamese Embassy demanding to see the North Vietnamese Ambassador so he could hand over the Christmas Presents to him. Naturally the North Vietnamese Ambassador refused to see him. But old Ross gave it one hell of a try and earned the respects of quite a lot of us in the military at that time. He also worked behind the scenes for a lot of presidents accomplishing things for them. he also had his two EDS I think at the time employees rescued from Tehran while Carter was playing out in the desert. When he decided to run for President back in 1992, I couldn't help him enough.

Anyway, good night one and all. Till tomorrow

Good night, Pero. Be well. :2wave:

 

[Cyrylek]

I was thinking Cruz with my previous statement, not Paul.

Some of my friends around here could notice that I am sort of trying to avoid talking about Ted Cruz.

You see, I am not ready to consign him to the garbage bin of the fake tea partiers where Michelle Bachmann and Co do rightfully belong, but neither am I convinced that he is "the real deal", like Justin Amash or Thomas Massie.

One problem with our current pathetic situation is that it is all too easy to vocalize obvious truths - and benefit from the irrational, rabid reaction they provoke from the Unthinking Left. But after that, you have to offer something constructive. In their very different ways, people like Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Gary Johnson, Nikki Haley et al, et al did that.

Cruz? I am not sure. Either way.

 

[Captain America]

I cannot disagree with anything you said! People I have talked with told me their impression was that he thought he was "due" the job, and maybe they're right. We'll never know if Romney would have been a good POTUS. One of Fate's decisions, I guess.

I agree with only 95% of that. The "JFK has charisma and could move crowds. Neither Romney or Obama can or could do that," I would question. Obama could whip up a crowd like a tent revival preacher. It was somewhat cultish. Rock star. He filled arenas when his opponents were busing in people to Town Hall meetings. Like they say, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****." I would put Obama closer to Reagan, as far as crowd appeal, than any other.

 

[Perotista]

I cannot disagree with anything you said! People I have talked with told me their impression was that he thought he was "due" the job, and maybe they're right. We'll never know if Romney would have been a good POTUS. One of Fate's decisions, I guess.

Yep, exactly.

 

[Perotista]

Some of my friends around here could notice that I am sort of trying to avoid talking about Ted Cruz.

You see, I am not ready to consign him to the garbage bin of the fake tea partiers where Michelle Bachmann and Co do rightfully belong, but neither am I convinced that he is "the real deal", like Justin Amash or Thomas Massie.

One problem with our current pathetic situation is that it is all too easy to vocalize obvious truths - and benefit from the irrational, rabid reaction they provoke from the Unthinking Left. But after that, you have to offer something constructive. In their very different ways, people like Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Gary Johnson, Nikki Haley et al, et al did that.

Cruz? I am not sure. Either way.

Good morning if you're up. I voted for Johnson last year. I couldn't vote for a candidate that added over 4 trillion to the debt and acted like he didn't even know the debt existed or one I completely distrusted. I am not one of these folks who will vote for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate only because they have a chance to win. Of those choices one still ends up with an evil winner or at the very least a very bad winner. I voted for the person whom I though would make the best president and whom I thought brought solutions to our problems. Not a business as usual candidate.

 

[Cyrylek]

Good morning if you're up. I voted for Johnson last year. I couldn't vote for a candidate that added over 4 trillion to the debt and acted like he didn't even know the debt existed or one I completely distrusted. I am not one of these folks who will vote for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate only because they have a chance to win. Of those choices one still ends up with an evil winner or at the very least a very bad winner. I voted for the person whom I though would make the best president and whom I thought brought solutions to our problems. Not a business as usual candidate.

I voted for him as well. As a moderate libertarian (in my mind, I am simply a "liberal, European style"), I usually cringe at the infantile rhetoric of Libertarian Party candidates, but Gary was an exception, and it was the first time ever( on the federal level) that I voted with pleasure. Not a sensation normally associated with the process.

 

[Captain America]

I voted for him as well. As a moderate libertarian (in my mind, I am simply a "liberal, European style"), I usually cringe at the infantile rhetoric of Libertarian Party candidates, but Gary was an exception, and it was the first time ever( on the federal level) that I voted with pleasure. Not a sensation normally associated with the process.

Pardon me veering from topic. I just want to say that, after paying attention to your posts, I was wrong to jump to conclusions earlier, perhaps in another thread, simply because of the "lean" you registered in your profile.

I find you to be a very pleasant poster with informed ideas and thoughts. I enjoy reading you. You represent your "lean," very well. Kudos to you.

 

[Perotista]

I voted for him as well. As a moderate libertarian (in my mind, I am simply a "liberal, European style"), I usually cringe at the infantile rhetoric of Libertarian Party candidates, but Gary was an exception, and it was the first time ever( on the federal level) that I voted with pleasure. Not a sensation normally associated with the process.

I usually refer to myself as a Goldwater Conservative, but that might be in turn be a classic liberal. Not the liberalism of today and not certainly the liberalism as espoused by the Democratic Party nor the Conservatism of the Republicans.

 

[Cyrylek]

I usually refer to myself as a Goldwater Conservative, but that might be in turn be a classic liberal. Not the liberalism of today and not certainly the liberalism as espoused by the Democratic Party nor the Conservatism of the Republicans.

Yes, once upon a time, there was very little confusion over the word "liberal". Then the American social democrats had appropriated it, and now we either have to agree that we are "conservatives" (which makes very little sense, unless we are able to make it clear that it's the classical-liberal foundational principles of America that we are trying to "conserve", and nothing else) - or to call ourselves "libertarians" - immediately suggesting some kind of radicalism which needs not to be there at all.

We have been sort of edited out of existence.

(By the way, I don't mean to disown the Ayn Rand-types, as classical liberals. They are - a radical faction on the far end of the wide liberal/libertarian spectrum.
They are still classical liberals, and we still agree on a lot of things. They just need to calm down and grow up, IMHO)

 

[Perotista]

Yes, once upon a time, there was very little confusion over the word "liberal". Then the American social democrats had appropriated it, and now we either have to agree that we are "conservatives" (which makes very little sense, unless we are able to make it clear that it's the classical-liberal foundational principles of America that we are trying to "conserve", and nothing else) - or to call ourselves "libertarians" - immediately suggesting some kind of radicalism which needs not to be there at all.

We have been sort of edited out of existence.

(By the way, I don't mean to disown the Ayn Rand-types, as classical liberals. They are - a radical faction on the far end of the wide liberal/libertarian spectrum.
They are still classical liberals, and we still agree on a lot of things. They just need to calm down and grow up, IMHO)

Yes, for sure. strange that Goldwater's conservatism falls more into the meaning and definition of a classic liberal. It does seem conservatism of today means to push one's religious values on you via the government and only low taxes. Liberals of today think it is the government responsibility to take care of the people and provide their every need, wants would be a better word than need. They tend to want to take the freedom of one being able to succeed and fail on their own away from them. The responsibility to take care of oneself and make them depended on the state.

I think people have a mind for one reason and that is to use. They should be able to decide for themselves what is good for them and what isn't. If they choose to do what isn't, they they should be held accountable for their actions. They made that decision whether it was to drop out of school, to smoke, not to wear a helmet while driving a motorcycle etc. I suppose what I am saying is the basic description or the third tenet of traditional conservatism: Small Government - A government that stays out of a citizens private business and lives. One can also apply this to classic liberalism as it fits right in with individual liberty and freedom over a government that denies that liberty and freedom for various number of reasons.

 

[johndylan1]

Rand Paul came out for amnesty so there isn't much chance of him winning. Ted Cruz is looking pretty good.

I believe Ted Cruz is great, but he is also a political ruse. His outspoken conservative ideals are designed to put him to the far right, thereby making Rand and Rubio look to be part of the "reasonable middle" although they are actually conservative. This will move the debate to the right substantially while allowing the squishy public to believe that they are rejecting the far right as they cast their votes for candidates to right of Reagan.

 

[Carleen]

Of course, a lot of things can happen between now and the nomination. But right now he is the most visible - and most liked - GOP governor in the country, which is a strong claim for nomination in itself.

You are right about that. I think every other lawn in my part of NJ has a Christie sign on it.

 

[Jerry]

Have you seen Bush blaming Clinton for things that happened on his watch?

Pretty sure, yeah, but even if Bush hasn't that doesn't change anything.

 

[shrubnose]

When I first heard of Senator Paul I did not give him much thought thinking he might be to much like his father but the more I listened to him and watched his speeches I found out he had many differences with his dad on the issues. I am beginning to like this guy more and more and believe he would be and excellent challenger for Hillary and I believe he would destroy her in debates. There is a long way to go but I believe he would be and excellent candidate for president in 2016.

What do you think?

I'm not going to say that he has zero chance, but the GOP has people who have a lot better chance of winning.

Chris Cristie comes to mind, He's a guy that I would seriously consider voting for.

Rand Paul's statements about the 1964 Civil Rights Act which were widely publicized before the 2010 election pretty much made me cross him off of my list. He's definitely not a racist, but people with Libertarian ideas like his about property rights made life a lot easier for the racists who want to be able to control where 'certain people' are allowed to go.

 

[haymarket]

I like his stance on the issues....I am not even sure he can get the nomination he could run as a third party candidate....I would definitely consider him.

There you go. Paul should run as a third party candidate. Great idea that I support 1000 percent.

 

[rocket88]

When I first heard of Senator Paul I did not give him much thought thinking he might be to much like his father but the more I listened to him and watched his speeches I found out he had many differences with his dad on the issues. I am beginning to like this guy more and more and believe he would be and excellent challenger for Hillary and I believe he would destroy her in debates. There is a long way to go but I believe he would be and excellent candidate for president in 2016. What do you think?

I thought you were supporting Dr. Carson...

He'll run. I don't know how much success he'll have, but he'll run.

 

[haymarket]

I like Senator Cruz to.

Third party for him too. Fine with me.

 

[Captain America]

I usually refer to myself as a Goldwater Conservative, but that might be in turn be a classic liberal. Not the liberalism of today and not certainly the liberalism as espoused by the Democratic Party nor the Conservatism of the Republicans.

Oh yes. Barry Goldwater, the Godfather of Conservatism, by today's standards of "conservatives," (and I use the term lightly,) would be branded a "flaming libtard."

I like most of Goldwater's positions.

I am pro-life, pro-gun, anti-government cheese kinda conservative. But because (see below,) I believe hurricanes are caused by barometric pressure and not gay marriage, I was forced to change my lean to Centrist. They yanked my conservative card!

 

[ARealConservative]

Oh yes. Barry Goldwater, the Godfather of Conservatism, by today's standards of "conservatives," (and I use the term lightly,) would be branded a "flaming libtard."

funny, a libtard just yesterday in this thread branded him an extremist belonging to the wrong century.

 

[Perotista]

Oh yes. Barry Goldwater, the Godfather of Conservatism, by today's standards of "conservatives," (and I use the term lightly,) would be branded a "flaming libtard."

I like most of Goldwater's positions.

I am pro-life, pro-gun, anti-government cheese kinda conservative. But because (see below,) I believe hurricanes are caused by barometric pressure and not gay marriage, I was forced to change my lean to Centrist. They yanked my conservative card!

lol, yeah I got you.

 

[Navy Pride]

I thought you were supporting Dr. Carson...

He'll run. I don't know how much success he'll have, but he'll run.

I believe that Senator Paul will run before Dr. Carson......I don't think you can miss on either man. They are both great American Patriots.

 

[Navy Pride]

Third party for him too. Fine with me.

I don't think any 3rd party candidate can win at this point and it would ensure a democratic win like it did in 1992 with Perot.

 

[Navy Pride]

Settled then, Christie 2016?

Sorry way off on the social issues.

 

[Cyrylek]

Sorry way off on the social issues.

OK, he is "pro-life", including the first trimester. But since presidents don't have much sway over such issues...

 

[Perotista]

I don't think any 3rd party candidate can win at this point and it would ensure a democratic win like it did in 1992 with Perot.

Bush the first lost because he ran an inept campaign, not because of Perot. ABC news exit polls show Perot drew roughly evenly from both parties. Do the math, Clinton received 45 million votes, Bush 39 million and Perot roughly 20 million. Bush would have had to received 13 million to Clinton's 7 million of that 20 million that went to Perot just to break even. That is 65% of the vote that went to Perot. Perot probably took more votes away from Clinton than Bush, Perot campaigned on the debt and deficit and pointed out the fact that Bush in his 4 years added 1.5 trillion to the debt. Most of the Perot voters were dissatisfied with Bush which is one of the reason they voted for him. Most wouldn't have returned to Bush even if Perot wasn't there.