Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

I was pointing out that he has real world experience and high education. Doctors are more useful to society than lawyers. He didn't run away from military service like Bush or Clinton. He doesn't support terrorists (unlike Clinton) he doesn't want to invade innocent nations (unlike Bush) he wants to cut the national debt. I don't know why people say he is the extreme one. Is it because he is less handsome than the others? Perhaps because he tells Americans things they need to hear instead of shoving fluff up our butts? Perhaps he is too straight-forward? Or is it because Americans like war-mongers and they think Ron Paul would be too weak of a leader?

Rand Paul is not enough of a war-monger to win either. Americans seem to think that wasting time in other countries is important to show we are a superpower. I would rather the USA be a wealthy neutral state like Switzerland (but with more freedoms of course) instead of a 'superpower' that weakens itself by playing games in uncivilized nations.

[Valica]

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.

I strive to be able to voice my opinion like you, Farn.

How do you manage to join a discussion and not come off like an asshole?

It's witchcraft, I tell you.

[Magna Libero]

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.

I strive to be able to voice my opinion like you, Farn.

How do you manage to join a discussion and not come off like an asshole?

It's witchcraft, I tell you.

She has probably watched Harry Potter.

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.

I was pointing out that he has real world experience and high education. Doctors are more useful to society than lawyers. He didn't run away from military service like Bush or Clinton. He doesn't support terrorists (unlike Clinton) he doesn't want to invade innocent nations (unlike Bush) he wants to cut the national debt. I don't know why people say he is the extreme one. Is it because he is less handsome than the others? Perhaps because he tells Americans things they need to hear instead of shoving fluff up our butts? Perhaps he is too straight-forward? Or is it because Americans like war-mongers and they think Ron Paul would be too weak of a leader?

Rand Paul is not enough of a war-monger to win either. Americans seem to think that wasting time in other countries is important to show we are a superpower. I would rather the USA be a wealthy neutral state like Switzerland (but with more freedoms of course) instead of a 'superpower' that weakens itself by playing games in uncivilized nations.

Don't get me wrong. I think Ron Paul is a relatively good candidate. It just seems like nothing does change, so he'd be better off just working as a doctor.

In that sense, Rand Paul is decent (that he doesn't want to intervene into other countries).

It would be horrible to see Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton, if Rand Paul does not succeed.

[Dyakovo]

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

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.

Except it isn't wrong. The "pro-life" movement is 100% about restricting rights - namely denying women the right of bodily sovereignty. Also, they can think abortion is murder all they like, this doesn't make it true.
But thank you for demonstrating exactly what another poster said a little earlier in the thread. NSG appears to be dominated by liberals and social democrats because they tend to be the ones with actual facts backing them up rather than just appeals to tradition and/or emotion.

[Dyakovo]

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

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'?

No.

[Ifreann]

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.

And how do Clinton and Bush not have real world experience? How is Ron Paul more educated than Obama, Clinton and Bush? No mention of any of the controversies Paul was implicated in. The bias is rather blatant.

[Magna Libero]

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.

And how do Clinton and Bush not have real world experience? How is Ron Paul more educated than Obama, Clinton and Bush? No mention of any of the controversies Paul was implicated in. The bias is rather blatant.

I bet this was directed at user Freiheit Reich? I didn't say anything what you mentioned.

[Ifreann]

And how do Clinton and Bush not have real world experience? How is Ron Paul more educated than Obama, Clinton and Bush? No mention of any of the controversies Paul was implicated in. The bias is rather blatant.

I bet this was directed at user Freiheit Reich? I didn't say anything what you mentioned.

I was furthering the point that the comparison Freiheit Reich made is unfair and biased, yes.

[Freiheit Reich]

I strive to be able to voice my opinion like you, Farn.

How do you manage to join a discussion and not come off like an asshole?

It's witchcraft, I tell you.

She has probably watched Harry Potter.

I was pointing out that he has real world experience and high education. Doctors are more useful to society than lawyers. He didn't run away from military service like Bush or Clinton. He doesn't support terrorists (unlike Clinton) he doesn't want to invade innocent nations (unlike Bush) he wants to cut the national debt. I don't know why people say he is the extreme one. Is it because he is less handsome than the others? Perhaps because he tells Americans things they need to hear instead of shoving fluff up our butts? Perhaps he is too straight-forward? Or is it because Americans like war-mongers and they think Ron Paul would be too weak of a leader?

Rand Paul is not enough of a war-monger to win either. Americans seem to think that wasting time in other countries is important to show we are a superpower. I would rather the USA be a wealthy neutral state like Switzerland (but with more freedoms of course) instead of a 'superpower' that weakens itself by playing games in uncivilized nations.

Don't get me wrong. I think Ron Paul is a relatively good candidate. It just seems like nothing does change, so he'd be better off just working as a doctor.

In that sense, Rand Paul is decent (that he doesn't want to intervene into other countries).

It would be horrible to see Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton, if Rand Paul does not succeed.

Sarah won't be running, don't worry. Jeb Bush is more likely. Everybody knows awful the last 2 Bush men were, maybe third time's the charm??

I am looking at this list and many of these folks scare me. Michelle Bachman, Rubio, Santorum, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump are all scary choices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica ... ates,_2016

Maybe Herman Cain will run. Steve Colbert supported him and he might attract some minority voters. Herman is probably better than all the choices above. The sexual misconduct might hurt him though but it might not-look at how popular Kobe Bryant is today, Americans have short memories. Jindal is popular and might get minority votes as well.

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

And how do Clinton and Bush not have real world experience? How is Ron Paul more educated than Obama, Clinton and Bush? No mention of any of the controversies Paul was implicated in. The bias is rather blatant.

Clinton and Bush did not deliver thousands of babies or serve in the military. They did less to serve and benefit the world than Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul also received more college education, he has a doctorate in medicine. Paul's controversies were nowhere near as bad as what Bush and Clinton were involved in.

[Geilinor]

And how do Clinton and Bush not have real world experience? How is Ron Paul more educated than Obama, Clinton and Bush? No mention of any of the controversies Paul was implicated in. The bias is rather blatant.

Clinton and Bush did not deliver thousands of babies or serve in the military.

Delivering babies has nothing to do with your performance as president and Bush was in the Air National Guard.

[Othelos]

She has probably watched Harry Potter.


Don't get me wrong. I think Ron Paul is a relatively good candidate. It just seems like nothing does change, so he'd be better off just working as a doctor.

In that sense, Rand Paul is decent (that he doesn't want to intervene into other countries).

It would be horrible to see Sarah Palin vs. Hillary Clinton, if Rand Paul does not succeed.

Sarah won't be running, don't worry. Jeb Bush is more likely. Everybody knows awful the last 2 Bush men were, maybe third time's the charm??

I am looking at this list and many of these folks scare me. Michelle Bachman, Rubio, Santorum, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump are all scary choices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica ... ates,_2016

Maybe Herman Cain will run. Steve Colbert supported him and he might attract some minority voters. Herman is probably better than all the choices above. The sexual misconduct might hurt him though but it might not-look at how popular Kobe Bryant is today, Americans have short memories. Jindal is popular and might get minority votes as well.

token minorities who hold the same views as the rest of the GOP aren't going to get a lot of minority votes.

People vote on issues, not color.

[Dyakovo]

And how do Clinton and Bush not have real world experience? How is Ron Paul more educated than Obama, Clinton and Bush? No mention of any of the controversies Paul was implicated in. The bias is rather blatant.

Clinton and Bush did not deliver thousands of babies or serve in the military.

Neither of Which have any bearing on the ability to do the job of PotUS.

Dr. Paul also received more college education, he has a doctorate in medicine.

An education that has no applicability to the job of PotUS.

Paul's controversies were nowhere near as bad as what Bush and Clinton were involved in.

Absolute bullshit.

[Ifreann]

And how do Clinton and Bush not have real world experience? How is Ron Paul more educated than Obama, Clinton and Bush? No mention of any of the controversies Paul was implicated in. The bias is rather blatant.

Clinton and Bush did not deliver thousands of babies or serve in the military.

Bush did, sort of. Both Clinton and Bush did have lives before they were president. Are you suggesting that anything other than delivering babies is irrelevant to one's quality as a president?

They did less to serve and benefit the world than Dr. Paul.

Opinion.

Dr. Paul also received more college education, he has a doctorate in medicine.

Obama has a doctorate in law from Harvard. Clinton has one from Yale, and attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar.

Paul's controversies were nowhere near as bad as what Bush and Clinton were involved in.

Opinion.

[Avenio]

Paul's controversies were nowhere near as bad as what Bush and Clinton were involved in.

Of course, taking that at face value, that probably has a lot more to do with the fact that Paul has never held an office higher than Representative. When you're the commander-in-chief of the world's largest military, de facto head of NATO, leader of the world's largest economy and sole remaining superpower your controversies tend to be a mite bit larger than someone whose primary job was to shake hands at local state fairs and take photos kissing babies.

[Aytropia]

He's too extreme at this point, but if he starts acting like a moderate Republican he'd have a chance at winning the domination and possibly the general election. Before the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, I would have said Chris Christie had the best chance at beating Hillary, but now he is just do controversial to go national.

[Geilinor]

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.

Doctors are more useful to society than lawyers.

Why is one more important than another? Doctors save lives, lawyers either help prosecute crimes or defend those who may be falsely accused of them. Saving people from the death penalty and helping to get violent criminals behind bars saves lives.

[Farnhamia]

He's too extreme at this point, but if he starts acting like a moderate Republican he'd have a chance at winning the domination and possibly the general election. Before the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, I would have said Chris Christie had the best chance at beating Hillary, but now he is just do controversial to go national.

There is no such thing as a "moderate Republican." The GOP's rudder is jammed hard a-starboard. Each time they lost a Presidential election - and they've lost four of the last six (five if you consider GW Bush did actually lose the popular vote in 2000) - they have reacted by declaring that they weren't conservative enough. Anyone who claims to be a moderate on any issue will have no chance at the nomination.

[Murkwood]

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.

Except it isn't wrong. The "pro-life" movement is 100% about restricting rights - namely denying women the right of bodily sovereignty. Also, they can think abortion is murder all they like, this doesn't make it true.
But thank you for demonstrating exactly what another poster said a little earlier in the thread. NSG appears to be dominated by liberals and social democrats because they tend to be the ones with actual facts backing them up rather than just appeals to tradition and/or emotion.

The elitism of this post is too damn high.

Also, you say that "doesn't make it true". This is a political issue. Really, there is no truth, only differing views.

[Freiheit Reich]

He's too extreme at this point, but if he starts acting like a moderate Republican he'd have a chance at winning the domination and possibly the general election. Before the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, I would have said Chris Christie had the best chance at beating Hillary, but now he is just do controversial to go national.

Is Rand Paul really that extreme? It seems the war-hawk (Clinton) is more extreme than the one that says we need to focus on our own country first. Libertarians are less extreme than mainstream republicans and mainstream democrats when you think about it. How is supporting a more authoritarian government considered less extreme? Rand Paul is not libertarian but he is closer to that viewpoint than Hillary or many other republicans.

[Freiheit Reich]

Sarah won't be running, don't worry. Jeb Bush is more likely. Everybody knows awful the last 2 Bush men were, maybe third time's the charm??

I am looking at this list and many of these folks scare me. Michelle Bachman, Rubio, Santorum, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump are all scary choices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica ... ates,_2016

Maybe Herman Cain will run. Steve Colbert supported him and he might attract some minority voters. Herman is probably better than all the choices above. The sexual misconduct might hurt him though but it might not-look at how popular Kobe Bryant is today, Americans have short memories. Jindal is popular and might get minority votes as well.

token minorities who hold the same views as the rest of the GOP aren't going to get a lot of minority votes.

People vote on issues, not color.

Are you sure? Stacey Dash said something different:

Actress Stacey Dash Admits 'I Voted For Obama Because He's Black,' Says Administration Is 'A Bunch Of Bullies'

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/actress-s ... 00680.html

The "Clueless" actress has a lot to say on politics.

"Clueless" actress Stacey Dash has plenty to say when it comes to the current Obama administration.

The 46-year-old actress — who was an outspoken supporter of Mitt Romney in 2012 but actually supported Barack Obama four years earlier — admits to Fox News “I didn’t know anything about [Obama] when I voted for him in 2008. My choice to do so was purely because he was black."

"Naively, I thought he would be the right person for the job but unfortunately it didn’t turn out that way," she continued. " Obama had the opportunity to really unite this country in such a profound way, but instead he has done the opposite. We are so divided right now, everything has become about race, more than I’ve ever known in my lifetime.”

Dash is currently upset that Attorney General Eric Holder is challenging Louisiana’s state voucher system on the basis of desegregation policies.

She tells Fox, “I just think it’s absurd. The natural evolution of a well-educated populous is integration, and for them to deny a child a better education because of the color of their skin is ludicrous and defeating the purpose.”

Dash, who also appeared in Kanye West's "All Falls Down" video, adds, “This is proof to me that this administration is a bunch of bullies. They need to drop these charges.”

"The school system has become a part of this huge government machine, governed by people who aren’t close to the situation,” contends Dash. “That’s why I’m a Republican. I believe in small government … The government is just too big and we have to make it smaller, people are getting lost.”

[Geilinor]

He's too extreme at this point, but if he starts acting like a moderate Republican he'd have a chance at winning the domination and possibly the general election. Before the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, I would have said Chris Christie had the best chance at beating Hillary, but now he is just do controversial to go national.

Is Rand Paul really that extreme? It seems the war-hawk (Clinton) is more extreme than the one that says we need to focus on our own country first. Libertarians are less extreme than mainstream republicans and mainstream democrats when you think about it. How is supporting a more authoritarian government considered less extreme? Rand Paul is not libertarian but he is closer to that viewpoint than Hillary or many other republicans.

It's considered less extreme because Rand wants to ban abortion and opposes LGBT rights.

[Geilinor]

token minorities who hold the same views as the rest of the GOP aren't going to get a lot of minority votes.

People vote on issues, not color.

My choice to do so was purely because he was black."

It sounds like she wasn't just an actress on "Clueless". She is clueless.

[Avenio]

token minorities who hold the same views as the rest of the GOP aren't going to get a lot of minority votes.

People vote on issues, not color.

Are you sure? Stacey Dash said something different:

Actress Stacey Dash Admits 'I Voted For Obama Because He's Black,' Says Administration Is 'A Bunch Of Bullies'

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/actress-s ... 00680.html

Yes, I can't possibly imagine why a Romney supporter in 2012 would want to characterize her previous support of Obama in 2008 as racially-based. That would totally not support any pre-existing GOP narrative that formed a key plank of the Romney campaign's rickety electoral raft.

[Freiheit Reich]

Clinton and Bush did not deliver thousands of babies or serve in the military.

Neither of Which have any bearing on the ability to do the job of PotUS.

Dr. Paul also received more college education, he has a doctorate in medicine.

An education that has no applicability to the job of PotUS.

Paul's controversies were nowhere near as bad as what Bush and Clinton were involved in.

Absolute bullshit.

If you are going to send troops to combat, you really should have military service. Perhaps Ron Paul is less of a war hawk because he knows what it is like to be in the military (full time-not on weekend warrior status like Bush).

Bush, Clinton, and Obama can easily send troops to combat because they have no sympathy for soldiers.