I see people talk about what this or that mafioso is going to do, and this Quino cartoon comes to mind:
Topic: Rand Paul 2016 (Read 3672 times)
Wow, you read a politician's website and actually assume it accurate?
Ontheissues.org looks at voting record and public statements. So, the extent to which it is inaccurate, is the extent to which he has lied to the public.So, so true.
Which is why I'm an Anarchist. giving these sorts of people a monopoly on the industries of justice and protection is like trusting your cookie jar to this guy:
Isn't that a face that just screams "trust me"?
Rand Paul on Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010)
Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009)
Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Items 1 and 3 are not so much socially liberal as hobby horses of the left. Items 2 and 4 are one item and could be seen from more than one perspective (my own is that government should be out of the marriage business completely).
I do agree with your other statement that the repubs need to move away from social conservatism (Well, I would, wouldn't I?) but there are several issues that should not be political at all. (Abortion should be left to the conscience of the individual politicians for example).
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm
Rand Paul on Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010)
Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009)
Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Most
Rather, they are authoritarian reactionaries seeking to impose their preferred social values/arrangements/preferences/priorities on the unwilling via the coercive power of state violence.
They are the mirror image of the right wing; both are utterly opposed to personal freedom yet disagree about which forms of liberty are most important to quash.
FTFY
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm
Rand Paul on Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010)
Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009)
Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Wow, you read a politician's website and actually assume it accurate? What the hell for? It's on the Internet, so it must be true! Dude, those bs websites are written to throw the opposition off of the scent for as long as possible. In this case, the opposition is as much the old guard of the Republican Party as much as it is the Democrats.
The worst thing that I can say about Rand is that, despite his upbringing, he is a very good polititian.
I am not stating if he is a good politician or not. I am only commenting on the bolded statement about being more liberal then most democrats.
As this is actually referenced to his VOTING RECORD I stand by my statement.
Wow, you read a politician's website and actually assume it accurate?
Ontheissues.org looks at voting record and public statements. So, the extent to which it is inaccurate, is the extent to which he has lied to the public.
A statement that applies to every other elected official, everywhere. How do you know a politian is lying, again?
Wow, you read a politician's website and actually assume it accurate?
Ontheissues.org looks at voting record and public statements. So, the extent to which it is inaccurate, is the extent to which he has lied to the public.
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm
Rand Paul on Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010)
Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009)
Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Wow, you read a politician's website and actually assume it accurate? What the hell for? It's on the Internet, so it must be true! Dude, those bs websites are written to throw the opposition off of the scent for as long as possible. In this case, the opposition is as much the old guard of the Republican Party as much as it is the Democrats.
The worst thing that I can say about Rand is that, despite his upbringing, he is a very good polititian.
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm
Rand Paul on Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010)
Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009)
Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Most Democrats are anything but liberal on social issues.
Rather, they are authoritarian reactionaries seeking to impose their preferred social values/arrangements/preferences/priorities on the unwilling via the coercive power of state violence.
They are the mirror image of the right wing; both are utterly opposed to personal freedom yet disagree about which forms of liberty are most important to quash.
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm
Rand Paul on Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010)
Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009)
Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010)
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
^this
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
Why do you think that? (it is false)
I'm guessing because you implied that it was Mittens' platform.
No I did not.
Regan won because he was a moderate republican not a foaming at the mouth tea party conservative.
The Tea Party has brought the Republicans too far to the right. Mitt is not so far to the right to be Tea Party but he is farther to the right then the average US citizen. The country is trending more fiscally conservative but more socially liberal. Why the fuck can't the Republicans get off of this socially conservative crap that is killing them. It basically makes a huge portion of the population have to pick the lessor of two evils. The Republican base would still (overwhelmingly) vote Republican even if the party went more to the center on social issues and you could pick up a huge number of democrats who are fiscally conservative.
No arguments here. Why do you think that? (it is false)
I'm guessing because you implied that it was Mittens' platform.
No I did not.
The Tea Party has brought the Republicans too far to the right. Mitt is not so far to the right to be Tea Party but he is farther to the right then the average US citizen. The country is trending more fiscally conservative but more socially liberal. Why the fuck can't the Republicans get off of this socially conservative crap that is killing them. It basically makes a huge portion of the population have to pick the lessor of two evils. The Republican base would still (overwhelmingly) vote Republican even if the party went more to the center on social issues and you could pick up a huge number of democrats who are fiscally conservative.
Why do you think that? (it is false)
I'm guessing because you implied that it was Mittens' platform.
That would guarantee a democratic win.
Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is.
That's false. The root reason that Romney was the least likely choice to defeat an encumbent Democrat is because he wasn't crediblely conservative enough for the (rather vast) conservative wing of the Democratic party (think "Regan Democrats", mostly middle class private sector union employees with traditional views on family, religion and policy) to choose a Republican challenger over a Democratic encumbent. The result being is those "center-right" independents & Democrats simply don't see that voting is worth their time, and turnout is poor; thus leaving the outcome in the hands of the political junkies. Simply put, there is simply many more registered Democrats in the US than Republicans, so it's not possible for a Republican challenger to defeat a Democratic encumbent without convincing at least a portion of Democrats to switch sides. And what value is there in that when most non-political observers can't really see daylight between their positions on things that they care about?
False? Only a time machine can determine that. But if you think going farther right will help the Republicans go ahead.... vote in the farthest right you can and see where it gets you.
So you are saying a republican needs democratic votes to win..... but being more conservative will bring out those democratic votes? Ok. GO FOR IT!
Regan won because he was a moderate republican not a foaming at the mouth tea party conservative.
I don't think that you know anyone that considers themselves a Tea PArtier
Why do you think that? (it is false)
That would guarantee a democratic win.
Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is.
That's false. The root reason that Romney was the least likely choice to defeat an encumbent Democrat is because he wasn't crediblely conservative enough for the (rather vast) conservative wing of the Democratic party (think "Regan Democrats", mostly middle class private sector union employees with traditional views on family, religion and policy) to choose a Republican challenger over a Democratic encumbent. The result being is those "center-right" independents & Democrats simply don't see that voting is worth their time, and turnout is poor; thus leaving the outcome in the hands of the political junkies. Simply put, there is simply many more registered Democrats in the US than Republicans, so it's not possible for a Republican challenger to defeat a Democratic encumbent without convincing at least a portion of Democrats to switch sides. And what value is there in that when most non-political observers can't really see daylight between their positions on things that they care about?
False? Only a time machine can determine that. But if you think going farther right will help the Republicans go ahead.... vote in the farthest right you can and see where it gets you.
So you are saying a republican needs democratic votes to win..... but being more conservative will bring out those democratic votes? Ok. GO FOR IT!
Regan won because he was a moderate republican not a foaming at the mouth tea party conservative.
I don't think that you know anyone that considers themselves a Tea PArtier
Quote
As for turnout, keep listening to right wing talk radio and ignoring the facts of what just happened.
I don't listen to talk radio, and the turnout was comparable to 2008; elevated overall for the exact same reason, the youth vote. Which didn't show at all in 2010. This is counter to what I said above, but since I was referring to the conservative voters (although failed to state that) I was not wrong. Conservative democrats do exist, and they didn not really vote this Tuesday. Milinials, however, showed up in droves. Most politcally active generation alive, and larger overall than even the baby boomers. It won't be much longer before they completely dominate the electorate, as more graduate high school and more boomers die off or move to expat retirement communities.
That would guarantee a democratic win.
Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is.
That's false. The root reason that Romney was the least likely choice to defeat an encumbent Democrat is because he wasn't crediblely conservative enough for the (rather vast) conservative wing of the Democratic party (think "Regan Democrats", mostly middle class private sector union employees with traditional views on family, religion and policy) to choose a Republican challenger over a Democratic encumbent. The result being is those "center-right" independents & Democrats simply don't see that voting is worth their time, and turnout is poor; thus leaving the outcome in the hands of the political junkies. Simply put, there is simply many more registered Democrats in the US than Republicans, so it's not possible for a Republican challenger to defeat a Democratic encumbent without convincing at least a portion of Democrats to switch sides. And what value is there in that when most non-political observers can't really see daylight between their positions on things that they care about?
False? Only a time machine can determine that. But if you think going farther right will help the Republicans go ahead.... vote in the farthest right you can and see where it gets you.
So you are saying a republican needs democratic votes to win..... but being more conservative will bring out those democratic votes? Ok. GO FOR IT!
Regan won because he was a moderate republican not a foaming at the mouth tea party conservative.
As for turnout, keep listening to right wing talk radio and ignoring the facts of what just happened.
Let's hope there's no more Jesse Benton involvement.
I really don't like Rand Paul. Unlike Ron Paul, he is willing to abandon his principles for political reasons.
While that is certainly true so far, I've personally met Rand Paul, and he is has a deep libertarian streak. Yet he is not his father. Still, he might have learned his lesson, and has four years yet to convince us that he has seen the error of compromising with demons.
He's also a genuinely nice guy, and tall. He's an emposing figure in person, particularly while on a speech platform.
I've never met his father.
Jump to: