Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Ashmoria]

*rolls my eyes*

no murk, its not no one.

I get it, it was a hyperbole. Still, you can't minimize 47% of the voting age population who voted.

of course I can.

with, as I mentioned before, the delicious irony of Romney getting 47% of the vote.

[Death Metal]

ooooo did you see (last night on the Rachel maddow show) that an iowa politician got convicted of taking a bribe from the ron paul campaign in '12? and that the guy who GAVE the bribe is now mitch McConnell's campaign manager? im pretty sure that that guy also worked for rand paul's senate campaign.

I don't watch MSNBC so no I did not.

[Ashmoria]

ooooo did you see (last night on the Rachel maddow show) that an iowa politician got convicted of taking a bribe from the ron paul campaign in '12? and that the guy who GAVE the bribe is now mitch McConnell's campaign manager? im pretty sure that that guy also worked for rand paul's senate campaign.

I don't watch MSNBC so no I did not.

oh I see that on further investigation it was only a ron to mitch thing. no rand connection.

missed the hat trick by *this* much!

[Freiheit Reich]

An overwhelming amount of people voted for Obama simply because he is black. The same will happen to Hillary, since she's a woman.

an overwhelming amount of people voted for Obama because he isn't W (2008) and because he is a pretty good president (2012).

they will vote for Hillary because she is a democrat. the woman thing is icing on the cake that might bring out an extra number of women to vote in the first female president.

Also the fact Hillary is pro-abortion is essential to gaining the female vote.

Women want to have control over their bodies and it looks bad when a man says they can't have an abortion even if his morals regarding abortion are sincere.

Any politician against abortion will struggle to get the female vote, even a female politician would lose votes for this reason.

[Coccygia]

Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.

[Geilinor]

Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.

Wat. She had a concussion a couple years ago, so what?

[Freiheit Reich]

an overwhelming amount of people voted for Obama because he isn't W (2008) and because he is a pretty good president (2012).

they will vote for Hillary because she is a democrat. the woman thing is icing on the cake that might bring out an extra number of women to vote in the first female president.

2012 - I have no fucking idea why people voted for him.

Because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were poor choices as well and Americans are slaves to the 2 main parties (they are too foolish to know they have more than 2 choices when they vote). Romney and Paul Ryan are known hypocrites. They criticized Obama for the same things they supported before. Romneycare is like Obamacare but on a state scale. Paul Ryan claims to be a fan of small govt. but he supported the bailout (something his 'idol' Ayn Rand would have blasted him for).

At least Obama is not praising small government while wanting to make government bigger like mainstream republicans always do. He is more honest about his intentions to increase the size of the govt.

I have no idea why Americans voted for Obama or Mitt Romney. I have no idea why they continue to be slaves to the 2 political parties that they always criticize but continue to elect.

[Freiheit Reich]

Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.

Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.

Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?

[The Black Forrest]

Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.

I don't understand your new age edgy hipster talk.

[Othelos]

Because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were poor choices as well and Americans are slaves to the 2 main parties (they are too foolish to know they have more than 2 choices when they vote).

Not in practice.

[Geanna]

I will be up front and say that I'm a die hard supporter of the Clintons. I understand that they are much too conservative for a lot of folks here on NSG,but for arguments sake lets say she locked up the Democratic nomination. Do you, NSG, feel that Rand Paul has a good chance of defeating her in the General? If not then which Republican do you think is up to the task?

Personally I think Paul's libertarian-moderate message will be fine and dandy and attract some young people and minorities. However, he will have to defend a fairly conservative voting record. Oh and let's not forget the Republican Primary. I think that in order to win the nomination, he will have to take some hawkish and socially conservative positions and, in doing so, will lose some of the ammunition he currently has against Hillary. If I'm correct, he likes to think of himself as a non-interventionists while Sec. Clinton is just the opposite.

I doubt it, Clintons would be good to have again
Bill was an awesome President, not necessarily a good husband lol

[Geanna]

Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.

Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.

Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?

Because in reality it's usually Rep vs Dem

[Freiheit Reich]

Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.

Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?

Because in reality it's usually Rep vs Dem

Its only reality because people don't vote for the candidate they like best. Nobody is stopping you from voting for the best candidate and if you vote for the 2nd best candidate you are making a bad mistake that you might regret every time the one you voted for does something different than what your best candidate would have done.

If you are the only person in your state that voted for Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, or some other non-democratic or republican candidate than at least you can say you voted with a clear conscience (assuming the republican or democrat are not your ideal choices).

[Dyakovo]

an overwhelming amount of people voted for Obama because he isn't W (2008) and because he is a pretty good president (2012).

they will vote for Hillary because she is a democrat. the woman thing is icing on the cake that might bring out an extra number of women to vote in the first female president.

Also the fact Hillary is pro-abortion is essential to gaining the female vote.

Hillary is not pro-abortion. She is pro-choice.

Women want to have control over their bodies and it looks bad when a man says they can't have an abortion even if his morals regarding abortion are sincere.

Isn't it shocking how voters tend to avoid supporting politicians who don't think they're really people?

[Ashmoria]

Because in reality it's usually Rep vs Dem

Its only reality because people don't vote for the candidate they like best. Nobody is stopping you from voting for the best candidate and if you vote for the 2nd best candidate you are making a bad mistake that you might regret every time the one you voted for does something different than what your best candidate would have done.

If you are the only person in your state that voted for Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, or some other non-democratic or republican candidate than at least you can say you voted with a clear conscience (assuming the republican or democrat are not your ideal choices).

ive never seen a 3rd party candidate who would have had massively more support if only he had more money/exposure/better spot on the ballot.

they are pretty much all nutz who need to be kept as far away from office as possible

.....

excepting people like lisa Murkowski, joe Lieberman and Charlie crist who were mainstream politicians forced by circumstance to run outside their major party.

[Murkwood]

Also the fact Hillary is pro-abortion is essential to gaining the female vote.

Hillary is not pro-abortion. She is pro-choice.

Women want to have control over their bodies and it looks bad when a man says they can't have an abortion even if his morals regarding abortion are sincere.

Isn't it shocking how voters tend to avoid supporting politicians who don't think they're really people?

Isn't it shocking how wrong that is?

Republicans don't think women are people, and the pro-life movement isn't about restricting rights. They think abortion in murder, ergo, abortion should be banned. Easy.

[Freiheit Reich]

Also the fact Hillary is pro-abortion is essential to gaining the female vote.

Hillary is not pro-abortion. She is pro-choice.

Women want to have control over their bodies and it looks bad when a man says they can't have an abortion even if his morals regarding abortion are sincere.

Isn't it shocking how voters tend to avoid supporting politicians who don't think they're really people?

Wouldn't the opposite of 'pro-life' be 'pro-death' or 'pro-abortion'?

The opposite of 'life' is not 'choice'

The argument anti-abortion advocates make is that as soon as the egg is fertilized it is a form of life. Even my biology professor in college made this case (a reason he is against abortion). In this view, abortion is murder and anti-abortion advocates place the life of the baby as equal to the life of the mother. The mother is not allowed to intentionally kill the baby (yes, the baby sometimes kills the mother but this is probably not intentional).

Life begins at conception:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html

This is why I can vote for a candidate either way. I believe abortion is better from a utilitarian standpoint. We don't need more unwanted children, especially those from bad donors (ex. crack mothers, rapists, wife beaters, etc.). However, I understand the other side as well and technically abortion is murder of human life (but I value the human life less because it is not fully formed yet-maybe I am a bit cold-hearted compared to the anti-abortion folks).

[Freiheit Reich]

Its only reality because people don't vote for the candidate they like best. Nobody is stopping you from voting for the best candidate and if you vote for the 2nd best candidate you are making a bad mistake that you might regret every time the one you voted for does something different than what your best candidate would have done.

If you are the only person in your state that voted for Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, or some other non-democratic or republican candidate than at least you can say you voted with a clear conscience (assuming the republican or democrat are not your ideal choices).

ive never seen a 3rd party candidate who would have had massively more support if only he had more money/exposure/better spot on the ballot.

they are pretty much all nutz who need to be kept as far away from office as possible

.....

excepting people like lisa Murkowski, joe Lieberman and Charlie crist who were mainstream politicians forced by circumstance to run outside their major party.

Compare Clinton, Bush, and Ron Paul. Who seems the more suitable presidential choice? Who is more extreme?

Bush: Patriot Act, 9/11 attacks (possible involvement), Iraq Invasion, prolonged Afghanistan invasion, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (hurts corporations), avoided serving his country in Vietnam War, DUI arrest, possible cocaine use

Bill Clinton-adultery, perjury charges, supported Kosovo terrorists, avoided serving his country during Vietnam War

Ron Paul: Respected real world experience (served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies); more education than Clinton, Bush, and Obama (Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine); so far no adultery charges and a successful marriage, against Iraq War, has guts to say no to his own party if they make bad choices (not a slave to his party), believes races should be treated equally (no affirmative action)

[Murkwood]

ive never seen a 3rd party candidate who would have had massively more support if only he had more money/exposure/better spot on the ballot.

they are pretty much all nutz who need to be kept as far away from office as possible

.....

excepting people like lisa Murkowski, joe Lieberman and Charlie crist who were mainstream politicians forced by circumstance to run outside their major party.

Compare Clinton, Bush, and Ron Paul. Who seems the more suitable presidential choice? Who is more extreme?

Bush: Patriot Act, 9/11 attacks (possible involvement), Iraq Invasion, prolonged Afghanistan invasion, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (hurts corporations), avoided serving his country in Vietnam War, DUI arrest, possible cocaine use

Bill Clinton-adultery, perjury charges, supported Kosovo terrorists, avoided serving his country during Vietnam War

Ron Paul: Respected real world experience (served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies); more education than Clinton, Bush, and Obama (Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine); so far no adultery charges and a successful marriage, against Iraq War, has guts to say no to his own party if they make bad choices (not a slave to his party), believes races should be treated equally (no affirmative action)

I love how you brush over both Bush and Clinton's prior experience.

[Ifreann]

ive never seen a 3rd party candidate who would have had massively more support if only he had more money/exposure/better spot on the ballot.

they are pretty much all nutz who need to be kept as far away from office as possible

.....

excepting people like lisa Murkowski, joe Lieberman and Charlie crist who were mainstream politicians forced by circumstance to run outside their major party.

Compare Clinton, Bush, and Ron Paul. Who seems the more suitable presidential choice? Who is more extreme?

Bush: Patriot Act, 9/11 attacks (possible involvement), Iraq Invasion, prolonged Afghanistan invasion, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (hurts corporations), avoided serving his country in Vietnam War, DUI arrest, possible cocaine use

Bill Clinton-adultery, perjury charges, supported Kosovo terrorists, avoided serving his country during Vietnam War

Ron Paul: Respected real world experience (served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies); more education than Clinton, Bush, and Obama (Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine); so far no adultery charges and a successful marriage, against Iraq War, has guts to say no to his own party if they make bad choices (not a slave to his party), believes races should be treated equally (no affirmative action)

You cannot possibly believe you have made a fair comparison here.

[Magna Libero]

Rand Paul is the one person who could definitely make me vote for that brain-damaged bitch Hillary.

Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.

Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?

Voting doesn't work. Hillary vs. Rand is basically like a shitty sweet and a sweet shit or vice versa, but Hillary is bad. So, your advice is basically to vote for an unknown shit?

Hillary would be a bad candidate, a tyrannic dictator like Putin. Obama and Rand Paul are actually decent compared to these, while still being horrible and moderate/centrists. I hope Hillary doesn't get elected. That hawkish bitch will destroy the world. We(=the humanity, the world) don't need people like her.

Indeed

EDIT: but yeah, I think the bitter truth is that the US will have another neo-con like Bush, except that now it's Hillary

[Farnhamia]

Watch the language. I dislike Hillary but we don't have to use foul language to talk about her.

Why can't you vote for another party if you dislike the 2 candidates?

Voting doesn't work. Hillary vs. Rand is basically like a shitty sweet and a sweet shit or vice versa, but Hillary is bad. So, your advice is basically to vote for an unknown shit?

Hillary would be a bad candidate, a tyrannic dictator like Putin. Obama and Rand Paul are actually decent compared to these, while still being horrible and moderate/centrists. I hope Hillary doesn't get elected. That hawkish bitch will destroy the world. We(=the humanity, the world) don't need people like her.

Indeed

I don't quite get the idea that politicians we don't like will "destroy the world." Political hyperbole, I suppose, and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised in this day and age. I also don't get why you put "(=the humanity, the world)" in size 1 type. It just makes a blot in the sentence and anyone who cares to can see it by clicking "Quote". If you have something to say, say it.

[Magna Libero]

Compare Clinton, Bush, and Ron Paul. Who seems the more suitable presidential choice? Who is more extreme?

Bush: Patriot Act, 9/11 attacks (possible involvement), Iraq Invasion, prolonged Afghanistan invasion, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (hurts corporations), avoided serving his country in Vietnam War, DUI arrest, possible cocaine use

Bill Clinton-adultery, perjury charges, supported Kosovo terrorists, avoided serving his country during Vietnam War

Ron Paul: Respected real world experience (served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies); more education than Clinton, Bush, and Obama (Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine); so far no adultery charges and a successful marriage, against Iraq War, has guts to say no to his own party if they make bad choices (not a slave to his party), believes races should be treated equally (no affirmative action)

You cannot possibly believe you have made a fair comparison here.

Yeah, the 4000 babies-part means that he should have just stayed out of politics, where he can actually be of benefit, like every other politician. So, there's not really a point here.

There are some more relevant factors that determine, who will be the next King of the Capitol Hill.

[Magna Libero]

Voting doesn't work. Hillary vs. Rand is basically like a shitty sweet and a sweet shit or vice versa, but Hillary is bad. So, your advice is basically to vote for an unknown shit?

Hillary would be a bad candidate, a tyrannic dictator like Putin. Obama and Rand Paul are actually decent compared to these, while still being horrible and moderate/centrists. I hope Hillary doesn't get elected. That hawkish bitch will destroy the world. We(=the humanity, the world) don't need people like her.

Indeed

I don't quite get the idea that politicians we don't like will "destroy the world." Political hyperbole, I suppose, and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised in this day and age. I also don't get why you put "(=the humanity, the world)" in size 1 type. It just makes a blot in the sentence and anyone who cares to can see it by clicking "Quote". If you have something to say, say it.

Bush destroyed the US and the country's international reputation. That's why I truly hope that Hillary, who is the more authoritarian interventionist of the two, will not win. I think the US should try to stay away from doorknocking other countries' matters.

[Farnhamia]

I don't quite get the idea that politicians we don't like will "destroy the world." Political hyperbole, I suppose, and I suppose I shouldn't be surprised in this day and age. I also don't get why you put "(=the humanity, the world)" in size 1 type. It just makes a blot in the sentence and anyone who cares to can see it by clicking "Quote". If you have something to say, say it.

Bush destroyed the US and the country's international reputation. That's why I truly hope that Hillary, who is the more authoritarian interventionist of the two, will not win. I think the US should try to stay away from doorknocking other countries' matters.

As much as I dislike President Bush, he did not destroy the US. He did damage our international reputation, yes, but President Obama has been trying to remedy that, with fair to middling success.