Rand Paul rocks the house at CPAC.

amfirst1
reply to post by buster2010

 

That was the cost for being president. If he did not support Mitt than he will never have a chance to get the nomination. Sometimes u just have to play chess not checkers. Obviously his father knew what he was doing.

ahhhh yes, the old "he had to sell out to the party but that doeant make him a party sell out" defense.

Its funny, people whine and complain about all the political bs in this cou try....then turn around and buy into the same rhetoric every 4 years.

How are people this gullible?

Aleister
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

How can people speak of Rand Paul as wanting liberty when he opposes gay marriage? He also opposes legalization of other things which people regard as components of liberty. What gives, is this a 1984 use of language (Liberty equals oppression)?

edit on 8-3-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

Personal liberty is different than pseudo-liberty forced onto you by the state.

Your version of gay marriage is to have the state sanction two lovers' and/or individuals giving eligibility to reduce a tax burden because they applied for a certificate. Churches should have the right to marry whoever they want (freedom of religion) and that is not a position that Rand Paul is against.

Now what do you have to say for yourself? that Rand Paul is racist because he believes in the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone they want? What about that gay baker that refused service to a homophobe? Oh wait...double standards.

captaintyinknots

amfirst1
reply to post by buster2010

 

That was the cost for being president. If he did not support Mitt than he will never have a chance to get the nomination. Sometimes u just have to play chess not checkers. Obviously his father knew what he was doing.

ahhhh yes, the old "he had to sell out to the party but that doeant make him a party sell out" defense.

Its funny, people whine and complain about all the political bs in this cou try....then turn around and buy into the same rhetoric every 4 years.

How are people this gullible?

I recall you being very much anti- Ron Paul. Perhaps your actual motive is to jump on whatever convenient opportunity to fault Rand. Fair enough, but who do you favor in 2016? Let's hear your constructive viewpoint on this election and point us in what you feel is a good direction.

Erongaricuaro

captaintyinknots

amfirst1
reply to post by buster2010

 

That was the cost for being president. If he did not support Mitt than he will never have a chance to get the nomination. Sometimes u just have to play chess not checkers. Obviously his father knew what he was doing.

ahhhh yes, the old "he had to sell out to the party but that doeant make him a party sell out" defense.

Its funny, people whine and complain about all the political bs in this cou try....then turn around and buy into the same rhetoric every 4 years.

How are people this gullible?

I recall you being very much anti- Ron Paul. Perhaps your actual motive is to jump on whatever convenient opportunity to fault Rand. Fair enough, but who do you favor in 2016? Let's hear your constructive viewpoint on this election and point us in what you feel is a good direction.

You're correct, I was not a fan of Ron Paul. Really isnt relevant to the conversation, though, as Rand and Ron are very different people.

I can say a lot of things about Ron Paul, but the one thing I cant say is that he sold out, like Rand has.

I havent decided who I am looking at in the next election. There are far too many people to do my homework on to have that pinned down yet.

I do know, though, that the person I back will NOT have a D or an R next to their name.

amfirst1
reply to post by buster2010

 

That was the cost for being president. If he did not support Mitt than he will never have a chance to get the nomination. Sometimes u just have to play chess not checkers. Obviously his father knew what he was doing.

Rand Paul will not get the GOP nomination. The RNC won't trust a loose canon that would sell out his own father.
So his support of Mitt will actually work against him. The only chance the GOP has to remain relevant in this political climate;
is to nominate a Hispanic or a woman. The Republicans have lost two core groups that decide elections in America.
The Christian Right Wing just doesn't appeal to basically a moderate electorate.

Political reality is a harsh mistress.

I refuse to vote for a D or R and am a registered Libertarian but I'm not so naive as to think any 3rd party has a ghost of a chance.
It's about money, not ideology.

It is money, money, money! Not ideas, not principles, but money that reigns supreme in American politics.


Robert C Byrd

Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.


Will Rogers

For the Libertarians to mount a viable campaign; someone or some corp. is going to have to pony up a butt load of cash.

captaintyinknots
You're correct, I was not a fan of Ron Paul. Really isnt relevant to the conversation, though, as Rand and Ron are very different people.

I can say a lot of things about Ron Paul, but the one thing I cant say is that he sold out, like Rand has.

I havent decided who I am looking at in the next election. There are far too many people to do my homework on to have that pinned down yet.

I do know, though, that the person I back will NOT have a D or an R next to their name.

Thanks for that, likewise it is still too early for me to have a favorite as yet but I do have some idea about who I absolutely do not want to see in the in the White House. The current mainstreamers that have some steam at his moment in time really put me off, Hilary and Jeb namely. Jeb may have some appeal to the Hispanic crowd but another Bush is the last thing I want to see. Such a thought has me worshipping at my own porcelain Oval Office. As an expat who hasn't set foot in the US since the GW administration it is quite likely I will not vote at all, though if Jeb turns up a front runner in the home stretch I might feel obliged to vote for the mainstreamer opponent, even if it is Hilary.

I am not entirely convinced Rand was a complete sellout without a greater political motive in mind, and doubt his dad considers his Mitt endorsement a slight so much as a sleight of hand that works in his favor overall despite the damage in the eyes of the Ron Paul crowd. If that helped make him a more powerful senator, fine. In my eyes Rand is likely the lesser evil with a R or D after his name, though an evil nonetheless. Does an independent or third party candidate have a chance in hell? Not unless there are some big surprises and upsets coming down the pike. I am registered R so would support Rand over Jeb in the primaries.

olaru12
Rand Paul will not get the GOP nomination. The RNC won't trust a loose canon that would sell out his own father.

It seems to me that is exactly the kind of candidate the party wants. However, Rand still seems to have some principles and suggest that is what would make him unpopular to the controlling body politic.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

In my eyes Rand is likely the lesser evil with a R or D after his name, though an evil nonetheless.

This, right here, is exactly my point, though. The reason Obama won a second term is because so many considered him the lesser of two evils. Same with Bush.

This is an age old tactic, and it works like a charm. Until people stand up and demand better candidates, we will continue to spiral down the path we are on.