Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Republic of Coldwater]

When Rand Paul won a CPAC Straw Poll, has majority support from the Tea Party, has the best black and latino support for Republicans, is doing a lot of minority outreach, and has pro-civil liberties and anti-war stances which appeals to many social liberals who focus on social rather than fiscal issues.

a tea party member doesn't appeal to liberals on social issues in general, though.

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

[Jinwoy]

a tea party member doesn't appeal to liberals on social issues in general, though.

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

He also wants states to have more say in how much civil liberties they want to give their people.
Well, there goes abortion rights, gay rights and woman's rights along the bible belt. He seems pretty conservative for a guy whose desperate followers claim him to be socially minded.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

He also wants states to have more say in how much civil liberties they want to give their people.
Well, there goes abortion rights, gay rights and woman's rights along the bible belt. He seems pretty conservative for a guy whose desperate followers claim him to be socially minded.

But far more socially liberal than Santorum, who wants all the bible belt crap instilled nationally. Overall, since Rand Paul supports socially liberal positions that overall exceed the social liberalism of many Democrats, he can easily garner the social liberal vote when compared to Hillary.

[Jinwoy]

He also wants states to have more say in how much civil liberties they want to give their people.
Well, there goes abortion rights, gay rights and woman's rights along the bible belt. He seems pretty conservative for a guy whose desperate followers claim him to be socially minded.

But far more socially liberal than Santorum, who wants all the bible belt crap instilled nationally. Overall, since Rand Paul supports socially liberal positions that overall exceed the social liberalism of many Democrats, he can easily garner the social liberal vote when compared to Hillary.

So a republican "let them be" candidate can gather more votes than a already well-known liberal-minded democratic candidate from a liberal voter electorate? are you high, or in denial?

[Peachany]

I don't like the Republicans.
They ove war and weapons...
Give me Obamacare and Hillary's foreign policy.

[Republic of Coldwater]

But far more socially liberal than Santorum, who wants all the bible belt crap instilled nationally. Overall, since Rand Paul supports socially liberal positions that overall exceed the social liberalism of many Democrats, he can easily garner the social liberal vote when compared to Hillary.

So a republican "let them be" candidate can gather more votes than a already well-known liberal-minded democratic candidate from a liberal voter electorate? are you high, or in denial?

Social Liberals, not those who are concerned with fiscal issues. The same kind of social liberals that Ron Paul attracted.

[Jinwoy]

So a republican "let them be" candidate can gather more votes than a already well-known liberal-minded democratic candidate from a liberal voter electorate? are you high, or in denial?

Social Liberals, not those who are concerned with fiscal issues. The same kind of social liberals that Ron Paul attracted.

That's who I'm talking about. No social liberal in their right minds would vote GOP in a million years.
If he ran for Libertarian, however...

[Ashmoria]

He also wants states to have more say in how much civil liberties they want to give their people.
Well, there goes abortion rights, gay rights and woman's rights along the bible belt. He seems pretty conservative for a guy whose desperate followers claim him to be socially minded.

But far more socially liberal than Santorum, who wants all the bible belt crap instilled nationally. Overall, since Rand Paul supports socially liberal positions that overall exceed the social liberalism of many Democrats, he can easily garner the social liberal vote when compared to Hillary.

the only way he is more liberal than mrs Clinton is in drug laws.

and I think that mrs Clinton can be brought around to a more supportive stance (but probably never in favor of full legalization of marijuana).

[Kelinfort]

a tea party member doesn't appeal to liberals on social issues in general, though.

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

Actually no. I'd still vote for the Democrats, because honestly, Rand Paul wouldn't be able to deal with his own reactionary party. Not to mention, he's hardly a social liberal or libertarian, even though he does support some liberal measures.

[Jinwoy]

[Ifreann]

So a republican "let them be" candidate can gather more votes than a already well-known liberal-minded democratic candidate from a liberal voter electorate? are you high, or in denial?

Social Liberals, not those who are concerned with fiscal issues. The same kind of social liberals that Ron Paul attracted.

The same Ron Paul who won neither the Republican nomination nor the election?

[Norstal]

Yes, they should. Anyone willing to abide to the laws and customs of any given nation should be allowed to live there. The only exception would be if they are fleeing just prosecution from their home country, but this should be on a case by case basis as some forms of prosecution are unjust.

To wall up borders is not only a policy that is contrary to the conditions that allowed such countries to exist and prosper in the first place, it is also an affront to liberties of people living on both sides of the borders as well as being detrimental to human society as a whole.

What it's about is not ancestor worship; it is merely about allowing others the same opportunities that one enjoys. That's all. And to deny others that opportunity for the mere fact that your people were "here first" is, again, hypocrisy.

There is no legitimate reason for a closed border. None.

Sorry this took so long.

I'm not advocating closed border, in fact, I think immigration makes the US strong and will prevent the demographic crisis Europe and Japan will face.

But sometimes you do not have enough for everyone who wants it, and you have to reject people.

Not enough of what? The U.S has too much lands, water, food, etc.

And before you point out homelessness or the unemployed or whatever, that's a problem of distribution, not lack thereof.

[Jinwoy]

Sorry this took so long.

I'm not advocating closed border, in fact, I think immigration makes the US strong and will prevent the demographic crisis Europe and Japan will face.

But sometimes you do not have enough for everyone who wants it, and you have to reject people.

Not enough of what? The U.S has too much lands, water, food, etc.

Not enough wealth. I mean, the top 1% need their golden toilet paper to survive month to month... can't have smart, possibly ambitious immigrants take that wealth share away...

[Calimera II]

If it would be Rand Paul vs Hillary, it would probably end like this:

20% Rand Paul
80% Hillary

[Othelos]

a tea party member doesn't appeal to liberals on social issues in general, though.

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

He is opposed to legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and is pro-life.That's not 'pro-civil liberties', and I don't know why people think that he's in favor of more civil liberties. He also supports intervention in the case of ISIS.

His economic side is even worse.

[Othelos]

He also wants states to have more say in how much civil liberties they want to give their people.
Well, there goes abortion rights, gay rights and woman's rights along the bible belt. He seems pretty conservative for a guy whose desperate followers claim him to be socially minded.

But far more socially liberal than Santorum, who wants all the bible belt crap instilled nationally. Overall, since Rand Paul supports socially liberal positions that overall exceed the social liberalism of many Democrats, he can easily garner the social liberal vote when compared to Hillary.

no not at all. lol

[Death Metal]

and I don't know why people think that he's in favor of more civil liberties.

Because they're too blind by their own gullibility to see the Orwellian propaganda tactics the Pauls employ, and merrily trot along the path to servitude.

Fortunately the rest of us see their skin-deep platform of right-populism for what it is; a complete facade for their real stance, which is a systematic deconstruction of people's liberties in favor of state and corporate liberties.

[The Orson Empire]

and I don't know why people think that he's in favor of more civil liberties.

Because they're too blind by their own gullibility to see the Orwellian propaganda tactics the Pauls employ, and merrily trot along the path to servitude.

Fortunately the rest of us see their skin-deep platform of right-populism for what it is; a complete facade for their real stance, which is a systematic deconstruction of people's liberties in favor of state and corporate liberties.

Very well said. It concerns me that people fall so easily to these Orwellian tactics, but, they have been proven time and time again to work.

[Myrensis]

He is opposed to legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and is pro-life.That's not 'pro-civil liberties', and I don't know why people think that he's in favor of more civil liberties. He also supports intervention in the case of ISIS.

His economic side is even worse.

The Paul family seems to have some sort of preternatural ability to get internet libertarians all hot and bothered about how totally amazing and right they are about everything. Fortunately for the rest of us, internet libertarians seem to be the only subset of the general population vulnerable to this peculiar influence.

I expect Paul #2 will lose in the primary, to many cries of underhanded tactics and mainstream Republican meddling, and we'll spend the next several years hearing 'Rand Paul 2020!' and 'Rand Paul was right about this! Rand Paul could have fixed that! Rand Paul predicted the other!"

[Atlanticatia]

a tea party member doesn't appeal to liberals on social issues in general, though.

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

Yawn. He's just as religious right social conservative as anyone else, but he claims the "states" should be able to decide it. i.e. he doesn't give a fuck about civil liberties - he's just scared of the big ol' federal gubmint and couldn't care less if state governments oppress people.

[Death Metal]

I understand, but Rand Paul doesn't hold the same religious right views as some Tea Partiers do. He supports more civil liberties, has been very vocal in his opposition to racism, opposes the drug war, and wants to end foreign interventionism. If he can expose the Democratic Party supporting the drug war, less civil liberties and NeoConservatism, he will be able to get some crossover vote from social liberals like how the elder Paul got some crossover vote from the Occupy Wall Street guys.

Yawn. He's just as religious right social conservative as anyone else, but he claims the "states" should be able to decide it. i.e. he doesn't give a fuck about civil liberties - he's just scared of the big ol' federal gubmint and couldn't care less if state governments oppress people.

No, he cares... he wants them to do it. See his hissy fit over Lawrence v Texas. And note that in said hissy fit, he outright says there is no right to privacy in the US, while saying that the states have the right to invade people's privacy as much as the state damn well pleases.

The sole reason he goes against federal action is because, more often than not, federal policies in fact protect people's rights. And when it comes to the causes where they do not, he never actually supports a full reversal... only for the states to legislate over it, and the fact of the matter is, when this happens, it typically means the states will keep the status quo.

Mark my words; when and if Kentucky decides to wiretap people without warrants, the Pauls will be the first to defend Kentucky.

The Pauls are authoritarian. They just doublethink people into believing they're not.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Yawn. He's just as religious right social conservative as anyone else, but he claims the "states" should be able to decide it. i.e. he doesn't give a fuck about civil liberties - he's just scared of the big ol' federal gubmint and couldn't care less if state governments oppress people.

No, he cares... he wants them to do it. See his hissy fit over Lawrence v Texas. And note that in said hissy fit, he outright says there is no right to privacy in the US, while saying that the states have the right to invade people's privacy as much as the state damn well pleases.

The sole reason he goes against federal action is because, more often than not, federal policies in fact protect people's rights. And when it comes to the causes where they do not, he never actually supports a full reversal... only for the states to legislate over it, and the fact of the matter is, when this happens, it typically means the states will keep the status quo.

Mark my words; when and if Kentucky decides to wiretap people without warrants, the Pauls will be the first to defend Kentucky.

The Pauls are authoritarian. They just doublethink people into believing they're not.

He believes in putting the issues of drugs and gay marriage into the hands of states, but not things like wiretapping and warantless searches. Maybe you should go read up Rand's positions before you make accusatory claims.

I would also like to see a news article pointing to Paul being fine with states being crazy religious conservatives (e.g wiretapping, state-level warantless searches) and the Pauls defending them.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=7

[Atlanticatia]

No, he cares... he wants them to do it. See his hissy fit over Lawrence v Texas. And note that in said hissy fit, he outright says there is no right to privacy in the US, while saying that the states have the right to invade people's privacy as much as the state damn well pleases.

The sole reason he goes against federal action is because, more often than not, federal policies in fact protect people's rights. And when it comes to the causes where they do not, he never actually supports a full reversal... only for the states to legislate over it, and the fact of the matter is, when this happens, it typically means the states will keep the status quo.

Mark my words; when and if Kentucky decides to wiretap people without warrants, the Pauls will be the first to defend Kentucky.

The Pauls are authoritarian. They just doublethink people into believing they're not.

He believes in putting the issues of drugs and gay marriage into the hands of states, but not things like wiretapping and warantless searches. Maybe you should go read up Rand's positions before you make accusatory claims.

I would also like to see a news article pointing to Paul being fine with states being crazy religious conservatives (e.g wiretapping, state-level warantless searches) and the Pauls defending them.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=7

It's not libertarian to believe that things like gay marriage, etc be left to the states. A libertarian would believe that the state should not infringe on someone's liberty (to marry, to get an abortion, or to use drugs), regardless of it being a federal, state, or local government.
It's just right-wing conservatism repackaged to appeal to the "libertarians".

[Jinwoy]

No, he cares... he wants them to do it. See his hissy fit over Lawrence v Texas. And note that in said hissy fit, he outright says there is no right to privacy in the US, while saying that the states have the right to invade people's privacy as much as the state damn well pleases.

The sole reason he goes against federal action is because, more often than not, federal policies in fact protect people's rights. And when it comes to the causes where they do not, he never actually supports a full reversal... only for the states to legislate over it, and the fact of the matter is, when this happens, it typically means the states will keep the status quo.

Mark my words; when and if Kentucky decides to wiretap people without warrants, the Pauls will be the first to defend Kentucky.

The Pauls are authoritarian. They just doublethink people into believing they're not.

He believes in putting the issues of drugs and gay marriage into the hands of states, but not things like wiretapping and warantless searches. Maybe you should go read up Rand's positions before you make accusatory claims.

I would also like to see a news article pointing to Paul being fine with states being crazy religious conservatives (e.g wiretapping, state-level warantless searches) and the Pauls defending them.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=7

I like how you're using a source straight from the accused. That's not a conflict of interest at all. c:

[Death Metal]

And just in case people forget, Elder Paul tried to make this a law:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

These conditions, especially the first two, can be used to argue that virtually ANY law a state or local government makes cannot be ruled upon.

These conditions would also make several cases where marriage equality is legalized revert to criminalization.

State will be able to conduct warrantless searches, prosecute homosexuality, ban non-Christians from holding public office, prevent people from having "objectionable" books in their houses, outright ban on ownership of firearms... pretty much any law you can think of.

And the ONLY people who would have the legal authority to stop these things would no longer be able to do so.

If you keep the Supreme Court from legislating on the Constitutionality of laws, you effectively render the Constitution null and void.

Meaning every state can choose to have an unlimited, unchecked government.

The Pauls are big government authoritarian conservatives. Anyone who denies this is either a liar or delusional.