Topic: GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist - page 97. (Read 205816 times)

lol... Paul definitely knows how to remain in the media spotlight. 

Rand Paul: Trade Hillary Clinton To The Taliban, Not Guantanamo Detainees

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/rand-paul-taliban_n_5462065.html

if you think gun rights issues = #1 concern in america today, then i don't really know what else to say.

There's all that too, but I always start with the 2nd Amendment when it comes to politicians.  I can rule out most of them with that alone, and if they pass, they get a closer look.

I'm basically a single issue voter - less government.  Christie fails.

that's it? what about the other shit he's done, like bridgegate? or pandering to people just to become popular? he's a fake like practically every other politician, it's just that he was pretty good at hiding it.. at least until recently.

One look at Jersey's gun laws precludes Christie for me...

Christie is not an ideal candidate for the GOP. I would prefer Rand Paul over Chris Christie anytime. But still, it is almost impossible for a GOP candidate to win the elections, given the demographic changes within the general population.

^^^ Gerrymandering is used by both the main parties (Democrats and the Republicans), to increase their seat count. So no one can just blame any one party for it. Both the parties are responsible.

"Gerrymandering" is a false flag to cover for the Stalin-approved crime of literally not counting enough of the actual votes for the least possible evil, to ensure the worst possible evil wins every election that matters.

^^^ Gerrymandering is used by both the main parties (Democrats and the Republicans), to increase their seat count. So no one can just blame any one party for it. Both the parties are responsible.

Are you smoking weed / shrooms right now? The vote rigging mostly happens in the inner city areas, where the Democrats get close to 100% of the votes. There are plenty of examples.

There are some simple lessons to take away from this.

Republican-controlled redistricting led to a swing in margin of at least* 26 seats, almost as large as the 31-seat majority of the new Congress. Those actions created a new power reality in the House – or more accurately, retained the old power reality.
In the states listed above, the net effect of both parties’ redistricting combined was R+11.5 seats. Putting all of this redistricting into nonpartisan commissions would lead to a swing of at least 23 seats. The resulting seat count would be 213 D, 222 R or even closer. It is possible that in the absence of partisan gerrymandering, control would have been within reach for the Democrats.

it's actually just the areas where republicans are contesting. they are known for playing a dirtier/smarter game than the democrats, who act like pussies compared to them.

Lol... the inner city areas in most of the American cities are famous for bogus voting and vote rigging. Remember the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008 (Norm Coleman vs Al Franken). It was epic.  

You mean like the 100% turnout in heavily democratic Philadelphia precincts in 2012? Really proud day for my state right there.

It is obvious that most people feel like some abstract "The Man" doesn't speak for them, but oddly enough, there is no congressman with a <9% approval rating. They're often in the high 40s or 50s, often 60-85% for established candidates. If you average them all, you probably get something like a 45-60% approval rating. People are either stupid or ignorant. The only other explanation I can think of is that the US is way, way too large to be effectively governed and really needs to be sectioned off, where what's now the USG acts more like the EU (which a good many Europeans will even tell you is too much government for too much diversity). Of course, we fought a civil war over that, so the chance of the federal USG ever taking a step back and letting people be governed with laws they apparently approve of 45-60% as opposed to 9% is around 0%.

What shows that politicians don't speak for the people is the very low voter turnout in the US in years when only voting for Congressmen rather than the $x billion "political Superbowl" in presidential-voting years (~37-42% in 2010, though it's usually only ~50% in pres. years), which can arguably be seen as a "none of the above" option, which the various US governments have been very active in trying to prevent, perhaps out of worry the US may look anti-American (undemocratic). I don't buy the apathy argument. Maybe people are apathetic toward voting, but that doesn't necessarily indicate apathy toward government or society.

(I don't have the bandwidth to view the Rand backpeddling video - don't mean to ignore it)