Rand Paul as President

[musical marv]

I am contemplating that Rand Paul will be in the party in 2016 for presidential candidate. Do you think his views are to extreme or not to be a leader of a great country like the U.S.?

 

[chunkymonster]

Determining if Rand Paul's views and positions are "extreme" really comes down to which political POV you're coming from. For conservatives, constitutionalists, some republicans, and moderate democrats Paul's views are in line with how the our republic should be run and operate. However, his views are perceived as extreme by anyone who is for big government including, but not limited, to RINO republicans, liberals, progressives, and leftist democrats.

Sadly, this country and a significant minority have become so dependent on the government for a subsistence and many politicians desperately want to hold onto their power that there would be almost insurmountable resistance to a Rand Paul presidency. Common sense government run by and for the people has given way to political correctness, political expedience, and the cult of personality.

America has swung so far to the left and has all but abandoned it's republican roots that even taking the position of reducing the size and scope of the federal government, cutting spending, or promoting State's rights is seen as being extreme.

Me personally, I voted for Ron Paul and would vote for Rand.

 

[musical marv]

I think he might be the only decent candidate to run in 2016. Christie is out to corrupt. Jeb Bush no one wants any more Bush 's to run.Paul at least wants a smaller government which is the right way to perceive this failing economy.
I agree with you on this choice of yours.

 

[Onus]

Our nation has become too overrun by parasites, big (politicians and banksters) and small (welfare recipients). History will tell the tale, and it is getting time for people to decide which side of history they want to be on.

 

[musical marv]

Are you talking about the heartless Republican Party who gives a <removed by moderator> less about the average citizen today such as the seniors, Middle Class, and Poor.

<Let's watch the language in the forums>

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Ted Cruz gets my vote.

 

[Onus]

Republican, Democrat, there is no functional difference. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul may be exceptions (particularly Cruz, considering his background in which his family escaped from Communist Cuba), however otherwise none of them have the least respect for the ideals with which this country was founded.

 

[4Ryan6]

What difference does it make Marv?

They all end up lying sooner or later anyway!

All their great claims and aspirations turn to naught when they realize they're trying to push a snowball uphill!

The more they push it, the larger it gets until it's too massive and it rolls over them smashing their hopes, dreams, and promises!

The entire US government needs to be flushed down the toilet and completely replaced with those that actually do what they say!

Unfortunately today that's a very small minority of the US population!

This message was approved by 4Ryan6!

 

[musical marv]

A politician is a actor that is all they really are.More <removed by moderator> they give you the more we suckers believe it. I for one do not any longer myself. I agree with you.

<2nd warning for language>
<Keep it clean in the forums people>

 

[Reynod]

The biggest problem is the whole money for campaign structure in the US.

In order to win an election you need sponsorship of huge amounts of money ... that comes with implicit promises.

The corruption starts right there.

 

[4Ryan6]

The biggest problem is the whole money for campaign structure in the US.

In order to win an election you need sponsorship of huge amounts of money ... that comes with implicit promises.

The corruption starts right there.

Yes! Absolutely Correct!

 

[chunkymonster]

Are you talking about the heartless Republican Party who gives a <removed by moderator> less about the average citizen today such as the seniors, Middle Class, and Poor.

<Let's watch the language in the forums>

Truth is Marv, neither republicans of democrats give two squats about the average citizen, they are two legs supporting the same body of big government. Just listen to what both sides say about folks like Paul, Cruz, and Carson. Establishment republicans and democrats do not want independent thinkers rocking their gravy train; especially McConnell and Reid.

 

[Onus]

If you want change, any vote for a Republican (with 2-3 possible exceptions) or ANY Democrat is a wasted vote.

 

[musical marv]

Are you talking about the heartless Republican Party who gives a <removed by moderator> less about the average citizen today such as the seniors, Middle Class, and Poor.

<Let's watch the language in the forums>

Truth is Marv, neither republicans of democrats give two squats about the average citizen, they are two legs supporting the same body of big government. Just listen to what both sides say about folks like Paul, Cruz, and Carson. Establishment republicans and democrats do not want independent thinkers rocking their gravy train; especially McConnell and Reid.

The politicians years ago when I was growing up cared about the citizens to day they do not really care.They care about how much money they can get for the themselves or their pet projects.I agree with you on this.

 

[Hawkeye22]

The biggest problem is the whole money for campaign structure in the US.

In order to win an election you need sponsorship of huge amounts of money ... that comes with implicit promises.

The corruption starts right there.

The Citiens United verdict didn't help any. This should have never been allowed to pass.

 

[musical marv]

The Koch brothers play an enormous part in this with billions of dollars spent by them in wanting their own puppets to run in elections.

 

[chunkymonster]

The Koch brothers play an enormous part in this with billions of dollars spent by them in wanting their own puppets to run in elections.

Marv, this is not directed at you, please take no offense. No harm, no foul.

The Koch Brother are a boogeyman and democrat whipping boy poster child. Yes, the Koch brothers are the largest single individual contributors to conservative campaigns and causes, but they are not the end-all-be-all of what is wrong with political donations. As Justice Roberts put it;

“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. ... Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects.”

Fact is, David Koch was the Libertarian Party Vice President nominee in 1980. The Koch brothers are socially progressive but fiscally conservative; in other words Libertarian.

Did you know the Koch brothers; 1) donated $20M to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act, 2) support legalizing marijuana, 3) support gay marriage, 4) support non-interventionist foreign policy, 5) are against excessive government spending, 5) promote reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Based on that info, I would argue that the Koch brothers support and donate more money to progressive causes then Progressives themselves!

Understand, I am not defending the Koch brothers. Fact is, I could care less about how much of their own money they donate to what or which causes. As I said, they are a boogeyman, a poster child whipping boy by the left. A classic target of Alinsky style propaganda. But if you're going to criticize political donor's, then at least do not be a hypocrite! If you are going to call out the Koch brothers for political donations, then also call out the large democrat donation's as being the root of all that is evil with political donations.

Did you know that between 2001-2010, George Soros donated $32.5M to 527 Organizations compared to the Koch Brothers $1.5M!

 

[Onus]

The problem isn't money going to candidates or to causes. The problem is that elected officials are able to reward donors with political favors, typically at the forced expense of everyone else. If these rights violations were recognized as such and not permitted, the incentive to make huge donations would dry up, since there'd be no anticipated payback, and no anticipated extortion for failing to donate.

 

[MU_Engineer]

I don't think Paul or anybody like Paul will get the nomination. The federal government has become large and powerful enough that it is really only responsible to a small number of people who are in significant positions of power within it. They like the power and wealth this gives them both directly and indirectly. This leads to the case of the government being largely independent of the citizens and concerned only with preservation and expansion of its power and size. Somebody like Paul who has even a moderate likelihood of upsetting even a small part of the government's continued growth and independence from the citizens is absolutely to be kept out of any real position of power lest this status quo be upset.

I personally don't think Paul's views are extreme. Many surveys show that his general ideas of greater individual freedom and personal responsibility are quite popular. The government has a huge influence on most of the media and of course they want to paint somebody who many be any bit of a threat to the status quo of continued governmental expansion as bad people. We know that the media is pretty effective in getting most people to believe most things. So if people hear Paul is an extremist, well then, he must be one.

I am guessing that somebody along the lines of a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush will get the nomination. They nearly always do. Enough high-level Republicans are part of and benefit from the unchecked self-propagating government to want to disturb this, so they'll continue to nominate the "talk loudly but roll over and die when actually challenged" folks like Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, etc. This will only end when we have our own Zimbabwe-esque hyperinflation crisis due to the massive overspending that occurs when you have an unchecked government. Then we'll see the actually fiscally conservative people control the Republican Party and the Democrat Party as we know it will dissolve. We'll remember that lesson for a few generations only to forget it over the next several, then rinse, lather, and repeat. It's happened other places before on multiple occasions but people are so arrogant and have the ability to suspend disbelief so "that can never happen here" until it does.

 

[Onus]

^Sad, but true; all of it.

 

[musical marv]

I don't think Paul or anybody like Paul will get the nomination. The federal government has become large and powerful enough that it is really only responsible to a small number of people who are in significant positions of power within it. They like the power and wealth this gives them both directly and indirectly. This leads to the case of the government being largely independent of the citizens and concerned only with preservation and expansion of its power and size. Somebody like Paul who has even a moderate likelihood of upsetting even a small part of the government's continued growth and independence from the citizens is absolutely to be kept out of any real position of power lest this status quo be upset.

I personally don't think Paul's views are extreme. Many surveys show that his general ideas of greater individual freedom and personal responsibility are quite popular. The government has a huge influence on most of the media and of course they want to paint somebody who many be any bit of a threat to the status quo of continued governmental expansion as bad people. We know that the media is pretty effective in getting most people to believe most things. So if people hear Paul is an extremist, well then, he must be one.

I am guessing that somebody along the lines of a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush will get the nomination. They nearly always do. Enough high-level Republicans are part of and benefit from the unchecked self-propagating government to want to disturb this, so they'll continue to nominate the "talk loudly but roll over and die when actually challenged" folks like Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, etc. This will only end when we have our own Zimbabwe-esque hyperinflation crisis due to the massive overspending that occurs when you have an unchecked government. Then we'll see the actually fiscally conservative people control the Republican Party and the Democrat Party as we know it will dissolve. We'll remember that lesson for a few generations only to forget it over the next several, then rinse, lather, and repeat. It's happened other places before on multiple occasions but people are so arrogant and have the ability to suspend disbelief so "that can never happen here" until it does.

Perhaps Jeb Bush but not Christie. Christie is nothing but a big windbag!

 

[chunkymonster]

Perhaps Jeb Bush but not Christie. Christie is nothing but a big windbag!

I wouldn't want either Marv. Twelve years of Bush presidency's was too much.

And, being from New Jersey, Christie is good governor, but would make a bad president. He is, after all, a republican in one of the most progressive States in the Union.

 

[chunkymonster]

I don't think Paul or anybody like Paul will get the nomination. The federal government has become large and powerful enough that it is really only responsible to a small number of people who are in significant positions of power within it. They like the power and wealth this gives them both directly and indirectly. This leads to the case of the government being largely independent of the citizens and concerned only with preservation and expansion of its power and size. Somebody like Paul who has even a moderate likelihood of upsetting even a small part of the government's continued growth and independence from the citizens is absolutely to be kept out of any real position of power lest this status quo be upset.

DING, DING, DING!!!! Give that man a kewpie doll! Well said! +1