Topic: GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist - page 87. (Read 205829 times)

How do they not take Florida? I'd think they win in a landslide.

Agreed. Bush + Rubio has no chances of winning any of the swing states, including Florida. On the other hand, they will lose a number of red states as well. An easy win for Hillary in 2016. 

You put those two at the top of the ticket and it's finally game over for the GOP. You'd have conservatives and libertarians either staying home in droves or voting 3rd party. So, establishment republican donors that truly don't like democrats better mind that before they settle on a couple of losers.

or you can vote for rand paul who is against what the far right wants.. people won't vote either. if eric cantor is "not conservative enough," what do you think rand paul will be? the problem is that if you're too moderate, the GOP base won't be down with it. if you're too conservative, the general populous won't be down with it.

rand paul's foreign policy calls for the US to stop meddling with other countries.. well, republicans practically own the military industrial complex, so i'm sure he'd meet a lot of opposition.

appealing to everyone is a pipedream. cantor got booted because he was pro immigration reform - he wasn't conservative enough to the far right-wing. rand paul is probably even worse to them. good luck with that. your party will implode on itself.

Actually Rand offers everyone a little of what they want for the most part. To the moneyed establishment/business republicans, he offers exactly what I mentioned in the prior sentence which would allow a complete repeal of Obamacare and pro-growth policies. He offers the 74% of Americans that oppose Iraq intervention and others that have generally grown tired of intervention a lot. The populist sentiment against the NSA strings many generations but mostly younger generations that are focused almost exclusively w/ entertainment devices. He offers the far right what they want in terms of depriving planned parenthood of money to fund abortions, a sound understanding of the 2nd amendment and a return to true American exceptionalism via freer markets. His economic freedom zones would benefit everyone as they expand but initially many inner city folks that would once again have an impending amount of job opportunities coming their way and a revival of their downtown areas, not to mention restoration of non-violent felon voting rights and a dismantling of the asset forfeiture divisions that clean people out for anything that can be tied into drugs. In full, the only people who have nothing to gain from his policies are the surveillance state people, a certain amount of the MIC and generally the most statist people out there.

or you can vote for rand paul who is against what the far right wants.. people won't vote either. if eric cantor is "not conservative enough," what do you think rand paul will be? the problem is that if you're too moderate, the GOP base won't be down with it. if you're too conservative, the general populous won't be down with it.

rand paul's foreign policy calls for the US to stop meddling with other countries.. well, republicans practically own the military industrial complex, so i'm sure he'd meet a lot of opposition.

You put those two at the top of the ticket and it's finally game over for the GOP. You'd have conservatives and libertarians either staying home in droves or voting 3rd party. So, establishment republican donors that truly don't like democrats better mind that before they settle on a couple of losers.

bush + rubio is a good pairing.. they'd have a good shot at florida's 29 electoral votes. take ohio's 20 and you have a pretty good path to winning it all.

By Greg Richter
22 Jun 2014 01:40 PM

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eic1jXkuyo8
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio parted ways with fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky over the use of American air power in Iraq, saying Paul was over the top in his characterization.

Paul wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Thursday that U.S. airstrikes would amount to America serving as "Iran's air force" if Iran commits ground troops to the battle against the terror group ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which has taken over large sections of northern Iraq in recent weeks.

"I think that's quite an exaggeration," Rubio said Sunday on "Face the Nation."

If the United States does nothing Iran still will be involved, Rubio said, and if Iran helps overthrow ISIS without American help, "You can rest assured that a future Iraqi government will be completely, 100 percent under the influence and in the pocket of Iran."

ISIS, the Islamic State in Iran and Syria, wants to set up an Islamic caliphate in the region from which to base its terror attacks. Rubio also differs from Paul on the threat he sees from ISIS.

By Eliana Johnson
June 22, 2014 10:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_9H1zprUs
 


Rand Paul is “basically an isolationist,” Dick Cheney said on Sunday.

The former vice president told ABC’s Jonathan Karl that isolationism “didn’t work in the 1930s, it sure as heck won’t work in the aftermath of 9/11 when 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters came all the way from Afghanistan and killed 3,000 of our citizens.”

Cheney and the Kentucky senator have been engaging in a tacit back-and-forth all week, and that’s how Cheney dismissed the criticism of the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion of Iraq leveled by Paul in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Friday.

In the piece, Paul argued that blaming the current chaos in Iraq on the Obama administration “ignores what President Bush did wrong.”

But Paul’s piece was itself a response to Cheney’s own Journal op-ed, which ran in Thursday’s paper. In it, Cheney and his daughter Liz, a former Defense Department official, pinned the chaos spreading through the Middle East around the president’s neck. ”Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” they said.

by DANIEL J. FLYNN
22 Jun 2014, 9:29 AM PDT

Senator Rand Paul said that the name of a professional football team isn't a legitimate concern of the federal government on Meet the Press Sunday morning.'

"I'm not much for the government getting involved in the NFL," the Kentucky Republican told host David Gregory. "I don't really have a personal, private or public, opinion on what the Redskins name should be."

Gregory's question on the Redskins referenced a letter signed by 50 Democratic senators petitioning the NFL to unilaterally change the name of Dan Snyder's team. "Now is the time for the NFL to act," the letter sent last month implored NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. "The Washington, D.C. football team is on the wrong side of history. What message does it send to punish slurs against African Americans while endorsing slurs against Native Americans?"

Harry Reid, one of the signatories of the letter, vowed this week not to attend a game at FedEx Field until the Redskins change their name. On Wednesday, the U.S. Patent Office cancelled six team trademarks after a ruling called the Redskins name "disparaging" to Native Americans.

Paul referenced the NBA's move to force a sale of the Los Angeles Clippers because of owner Donald Sterling's speech and behavior as an example of how private contracts can foster change independent of political involvement. But in the case of the Redskins, Paul said: "I don't know with the name."

The senator held that politicians sometimes get "distracted" talking about symbolic fights when Americans face "more important things." The "more important things" Paul addressed on the program included Hillary Clinton's failure to heighten security for diplomatic staff in Libya after being asked to do so, how the Iraq War has "emboldened Iran" and led to Islamic terrorists taking over large swaths of Mesopotamia, border security needing to come before work-visa based immigration reform, and the restoration of voting rights for non-violent felons.

she is running. if she weren't, then fox wouldn't be digging up dirt on her as they are, and she wouldn't be in front of the cameras as much as she is.

On one hand, she may not even run. IF she does, there's so much dirt on her past and present that the whole woman novelty thing will wear off fast. Similarly, she was planning the whole national health care aka Hillarycare back in the 90s during her old man's terms. She isn't removed at all from the devastation of the unfolding health care crisis among many other issues that are hanging around democrats' necks.

Hillary is having the demographic advantage. She just needs one-third of the white votes to win the 2016 election, while Rand Paul needs more than two-thirds of that group to have any realistic chance.