Rand Paul's going to run for President in 2016

I'd rather vote for rand paul than Joe 'too cool' Biden.

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
reply to post by illuminnaughty

 

Does that include the $600,000 he gave to the US Treasury out of his own money?

He did nothing of the sort. What he did was return $600,000 of the budget that his office was allocated, not $600,000 of his own money. The money was never "his" to begin with.

reply to post by muse7


No, that's what they call the liberty movement. Banning people from having medical procedures with their own body. They love big government when it is in their favor.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I don't care for him. His dad has nothing to do with my view on his politics and stances on matters either. Personally, a Saint could run for office and if they won then once they entered The Office they would realize that there hands are tied and that they do not have the wielding power that every runner for the office thinks they do. Once they walk out of that Presidential Elect National Security Briefing they come to terms that they are powerless to do what they set out to do. Even Rand Paul or his Father would be subdued by the restraints The Office puts on a President. It's a muzzle for a dog and pony CEO position that pays little and is just for Public Relations.

Rand can achieve what his father has been doing though and get the conversation going and get people moving in the right direction. The more exposure to the right message the better. Right now US citizens are lied to constantly by the political machine and are being dumbed down.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I don't vote for traitors.

Especially ones that threw their own dad under the bus just for political gain.

Rand = Traitor

ITs not that he threw his dad under the bus, its just Ron Paul had some pretty huge ideas that a lot of people were not ready for. So for him to be taken serious he had to shy away from his pops, its politics. Anf Its a pretty good strategic move which im sure ron paul would agree, . He doesnt want to come off as the crazy guy that a lot of people thought of his dad. I voted for Ron paul and Rand Paul will get my vote.

I actually think Rand Paul would make a decent president. The problem is the GOP. As much as I dislike the DNP, I have no faith or trust in the GOP. The GOP is littered with a lot of elements which would be nothing but bad for the United States. The DNP have proved to be liars with smooth smiles and crafty speeches. The GOP is a dangerous party filled with extremist. The DNP is party which plays on people`s desperate need for `hope` in order to carry out a soft version of Bush Jr`s agenda.

If Rand Paul could control the GOP and prevent them from going super crazy if they get power again I would have no problem supporting him for president; even though I am a classical Marxist socialist. The deregulation Rand would seek might end up being a decent cleaning of house on the hill. I would worry about him trying to totally dismantle the already in shambles social net which many Americans really need in these hard times. Public health care, WIC, food stamps and other programs are vital to get the American people though a situation which is becoming dire day by day. I wonder if Rand Paul understands that or not?

reply to post by WaterBottle


Where did u get that info from MSNBC? If u have any credibility at all why don't u source where Rand Paul said such a thing.

reply to post by freedomwv


Soft version of Bush?? More like on steroids and I'm not even defending the GOP. Liberalism is much easier to hijack then conservatism because they believe in progressive and the collective philosophies. THe elites take the idea and turn it into progression to overturn the constitution for the betterment of the collectives which is to kill off the population for easy control through birth control, one child policy, vaccines, chemtrails, fluoride.

Conservatism is the only way to stop them, but the GOP are full of fake conservatives some are progressives disguise as conservatives.

reply to post by SilentKoala


I could not agree more, go Paul.

reply to post by SilentKoala


I could not agree more, go Paul.

reply to post by NewAgeMan



Seriously Stop Voting!

It only encourages them. It doesn't matter who runs or who you vote for.

The bankers decide who the next puppet will be..... period.

And the bankers are controlled from the shadows.

Everybody on this site should know how Corrupt and Broken the system is....

If you don't, just Google "voting fraud" and have at it...

It saddens me to see so many of you still fooled by this....

The President has no power. He's just an actor.

Wake up people. Before it's to late.

"The job of the President is not to wield power himself, but to lead attention away from it."

-Douglas Adams

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Was this before Ron pulled out? Sorry, didn't see that last part. Maybe Ron told him to? If he would have backed his dad he may have fallen into obscurity. Backing Romney got him into the mainstream with most repubs. I'll look into it, thanks.

edit on 17-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

He made the statement a week or two before Ron pulled out if I recall correctly. It kind of led up to it in a way, and it caused quite a stir of angst at the time.

It doesn't really matter though, because anyone who supported Romney or Obama indicated they also support continued erosion of our rights and our economy, and agree with putting the same group of CFR Trilateral PNAC insiders into the White House that have been running it for the last few decades, and driving our nation into the pits.

Of which Rand apparently is happy to play along with, because it would seem he doesn't mind the fascist totalitarians.

Gee cry more will you.

You dont suppose Rand knew of his father that he would back out in advance now wouldnt you ? /sarc


A very good reason why rand backed romney is that rand did what his father did not do , play the game and he most likely did it advised by his father because Ron found out over his years that it just is not possible otherwise to get into it.

I'm not sure many of you know how 'politics' works. Not that its a bad thing, politics can be very dirty and sometimes its better to not know how things get done.

Sure, I wasn't happy he endorsed Romney either but thats aside the point. Without an endorsement of the party's nominee (or eventual nominee) he wouldn't be taken seriously...ever... they would just relegate him to the back of the bus like they did with his father. Anybody remember in 2011 and 2012 what the MSM continuously asked Ron? Whether he will run third party after he loses because he has been known to NOT always back the Republican nominee.

I don't like it either but if you want to win through the Republican party, SOMETIMES you have to play by the rules. Anybody who works within the Republican party (those who have been taking it over) will understand what I just posted.

Things are looking really good for Rand in 2016, watch him closely and his votes and you'll see that he is the real deal. I have been watching his votes and so far, I've been pleased.

Rubio is the establishment choice, we know this because he is constantly praised by establishment Republicans, he has best name recognition for 2016 and he was the choice for the GOP response to SOTU earlier this year. That and he has spent over 100,000 in political consultants for his 2016 bid.

Originally posted by freedomwv
I actually think Rand Paul would make a decent president. The problem is the GOP. As much as I dislike the DNP, I have no faith or trust in the GOP. The GOP is littered with a lot of elements which would be nothing but bad for the United States. The DNP have proved to be liars with smooth smiles and crafty speeches. The GOP is a dangerous party filled with extremist. The DNP is party which plays on people`s desperate need for `hope` in order to carry out a soft version of Bush Jr`s agenda.

If Rand Paul could control the GOP and prevent them from going super crazy if they get power again I would have no problem supporting him for president; even though I am a classical Marxist socialist. The deregulation Rand would seek might end up being a decent cleaning of house on the hill. I would worry about him trying to totally dismantle the already in shambles social net which many Americans really need in these hard times. Public health care, WIC, food stamps and other programs are vital to get the American people though a situation which is becoming dire day by day. I wonder if Rand Paul understands that or not?

It isn't easy to control the GOP, although Ron Paul's supporters, myself included, have been working hard to take over at the grassroots level. There is a special class of GOP establishment/insiders that stand to lose a lot of money if they lose power of the party, this class can be called the 'political consultant' class, the democrats have the exact same thing.

Hopefully by 2016 we will have taken a nice chunk of the GOP but we all need to work together. Some of these old establishment people want to maintain the status quo and know the dirty tricks to pull it off even if they lose.

I'll give an example.

A Ron Paul supporter was elected to Alaska GOP Chairman last year, they knew we were coming so they pulled all the money from the bank accounts and took vital information from the party, basically setting him up to fail. They then formed a special 'panel' to come together and hold a hearing to kick him out for failing as a party chairman. Luckily the next person in line was another Ron Paul supporter, what did they do to her? Wait for her to leave town, hold a hearing and kick her out too. She knew this was coming and gave specific orders to close the main office in her absence and would resume operation when she was back but they did it anyways. Now the establishment has regained control, although illegally, but they got their establishment lawyer to back it up and make it stick.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by muse7

 

No, that's what they call the liberty movement. Banning people from having medical procedures with their own body. They love big government when it is in their favor.

You've been called out way too many times to be taken seriously by me and yet you continue with this bs.

If you knew anything about Rand Paul, he does not seek the federal government to ban anything.

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
This is it, America. ...allowing drones to cover our skies

I think you're seeing things. Maybe you should call them in as UFOs.

Besides, Rand Paul would do worse than Romney.

I might vote for Ron Paul.

edit on 18-4-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

What is your reasoning? Do you know how similar, in origin, Ron and Rand are in ideology?

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Rand Paul is just like every other mainstream republican out there nowadays.

Anti-abortion
Anti-gay marriage
Voted for sanctions on Iran
Endorsed Mitt Romney

But then calls himself a part of some "liberty movement".......

He used his father to set up his career then ditched him when it counted most. If you sell out your own father you will sell out strangers.

edit on 18-4-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

Depends how you look at it because I know you look at it with very distorted glasses.

Pro-life - doesn't hide it, doesn't want to force you to his views.
Pro-Traditional Marriage - Wants to get marriage out of the Tax code so everybody is neutral, doesn't care what you do as long as it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights.
Endorsed Romney - like he always said he would do, endorse the nominee of the party.

Voted for Iran Sanction - Actually I don't approve of his decision to do this, he voted down plenty of other attempts to Iran and other nations. Many non-interventionists believe a sanction is an act of war, I have never heard Rand Paul call himself a non-interventionist. There are ways in which he is very similar to his father and there are ways where he is different.

He didn't use his father for anything, the only reason he ran for senate was because of his father. I mean, you don't even know any of the history behind this stuff so you just make things up along the way, really tired of exposing you.

Keep em coming, I will keep knocking them down.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

Rand at Howard University was particularly painful. He got up there and LIED.

When in front of republicans he admits he would not sign the civil rights act.

When in front of a black audience he pretends he never said that he was against it.

He went onto ignore history then laugh about it for his own gain. The guy is a complete fraud.

"The Southern strategy I didn't mention – I didn't really go there to mention the things that don't make us look so good in the Republican Party, so that was one reason for not bringing up the Southern strategy," he said with a chuckle this morning at a press breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

www.usnews.com...

No he didn't lie and why did you quote him talking about the southern strategy when you were claiming he was lying about the civil rights act? Be consistent or I should be here calling you a complete fraud like you seem to love throwing it around without any proof.

Rand Paul talking about the civil rights act in interviews is all over youtube, why would he lie when anybody, especially the liberal media can fact check him?

How SILLY and DESPERATE can you get? Oh I forgot, you are a complete fraud. See what I did there?

reply to post by eLPresidente


Thanks for posting the Rand interview on TRMD. It shows him equivocating for 9 and a half minutes on whether he believes it is right for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. This is part of the Civil Rights Act, and a part that it would seem he doesn't support. Hence, he doesn't support the CRA in total. That he supports the other portions of it doesn't matter; he doesn't support all of it. And trust me, that one (of ten) portions of the CRA is very important to minorities.

His claim that he doesn't support this portion because it causes other legal questions, such as people bringing weapons into private businesses without the owner's permission is just making a false equivalence. Notice how he never directly answered RM as to whether or not Wallgreens should be able to segregate its lunch counters or refuse service on the basis of race? Very telling.

I commented on another person's post about his discussion in an interview with a reporter as to why he didn't bring up the Southern Strategy of the GOP when he spoke at Howard. I said I hadn't heard that until the commenter made the post. My point was that RP was trying to paint the current Democratic party as the old post-bellum, pre-Depression one, and paint the GOP party as the old, abolitionist Civil War era Republican party of Lincoln. Hence he was being disingenuous by not acknowledging the modern GOP's Southern Strategy, which clearly caters to white racism in the South. I would go as far as to call it being mendacious -- as I did. Falsely portraying current political parties on their old, outmoded ways is lying.

I never said he lied about his beliefs regarding the CRA. I said he was trying to backpedal and/or avoid addressing them when he talked with RM, and the clip you provided makes my point -- and is the segment that I mentioned in my original post regarding him.

You wrote:
"Rand Paul talking about the civil rights act in interviews is all over youtube, why would he lie when anybody, especially the liberal media can fact check him?"

Uhh, plenty of politicians claim they haven't said this, that, or the other thing even though it is on YouTube or there is an electronic archive of an e-mail or whatever. Why are you suggesting that RP isn't capable of the same behavior and cluelessness regarding our electronically-archived culture?

You wrote:
"How SILLY and DESPERATE can you get? Oh I forgot, you are a complete fraud. See what I did there?"

Yes, I see you ad hominem attacked and slandered me, based on your false representation of what I said, whereas I tried to describe RP's behavior and rhetoric as best I could. Nor have I called you a fraud or a liar -- unlike what you have said of me.

I also noticed that it seems I can't reply to threads you start. Am I correct about this, or was that just a one-time glitch/bug with ATS? I've never had a "permission denied" message when trying to post to anyone else's thread. Please set me straight on this issue; I am genuinely interested to know.

reply to post by MrInquisitive


If you checked, I quoted the other ats member and not you. I didn't read your original post so I can't even respond to it correctly.

I'll leave with this, in the video I posted, he specifically stated he would've liked to open up the last portion for discussion, that is if he had the chance to be physically present when the CRA was to be voted on.

Rand Paul is extremely high profile right now and is constantly a target of the paranoid left, even though some on the left will say that they WANT Rand Paul to be the GOP nominee to make it easy for whoever the democratic nominee is. The Liberal media is obviously telling a different story. Trust me on this one, if he lies, he WILL be fact checked. He is a sitting US senator that is currently an extremely influential figure within the republican party and everybody knows he wants to run for president.

Let's not 'beat around the bush here', he WILL be fact checked for every word he utters.