Forum Thread

Rand Paul Officially Announces His Presidential Candidacy

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 15 Posts
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I'm sure everyone saw this coming. Rand Paul just officially announced his candidacy to run in the 2016 Presidential election.

    Rand Paul: 'I'm putting myself forward as a candidate for president'

    That makes Cruz and Rand the only officially announced candidates for the Republican party for '16. So looks like this next election cycle for the GOP will be main staging the Tea Party lot. I wonder how successful Rand will be.. I certainly think he has a much better chance than Cruz. And certainly a better chance at polling strong than his father ever did.

    With the obvious sea change in the GOP toward mainstreaming a more libertarian stance, could we seriously be looking at a Rand/Clinton showdown in our near future? For what it's worth, Rand is one of the few Republicans that I have any hope or interest in whatsoever. While I do not agree with a great many of his views, especially on anything that has to do with separating religion out of our government, I do find myself respecting the guy on many 'liberty' issues, such as national security or becoming less involved in war in general.

    What I think would generate a great deal of 'youth voting' would be a Elizabeth Warren/Rand Paul general election. For if we are to be stuck in the 2 party only choice yet again of this person or that, I think that would make the most compelling of choices. How do you fall on Rand's decision to run?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    sbfriedman Wrote: With the obvious sea change in the GOP toward mainstreaming a more libertarian stance, could we seriously be looking at a Rand/Clinton showdown in our near future? For what it's worth, Rand is one of the few Republicans that I have any hope or interest in whatsoever. While I do not agree with a great many of his views, especially on anything that has to do with separating religion out of our government, I do find myself respecting the guy on many 'liberty' issues, such as national security or becoming less involved in war in general.
    Paul is an interesting character. Some of the things he stands for really resonate with me, but some of his other stances make me recoil. Libertarianism, in theory, sounds great. In practice it would be catastrophic for the lower and middle classes. And Paul's recent shift to the right on foreign policy only shows me that he's willing to compromise his morals to win. All politicians do that, but it's especially striking for him to do so this early.

    What's interesting is that Paul should be appalled that religion plays such a prominent role in our government and his position stands in contrast to many of the Libertarians that I know. I understand, politically speaking, he can't just come out against religion. But he doesn't have to embrace it as much as he is either.

    His national security stances are appealing to me, but his views regarding the role of government and his 'let everyone fend for themselves' stances really turn me off.
    sbfriedman Wrote: What I think would generate a great deal of 'youth voting' would be a Elizabeth Warren/Rand Paul general election. For if we are to be stuck in the 2 party only choice yet again of this person or that, I think that would make the most compelling of choices. How do you fall on Rand's decision to run?
    This would be one hell of a race. I'd much rather have that than a Clinton/Bush general.

    I respect Paul more than pretty much any other Republican, but I still could never see myself voting for him. His views on social issues and the role of government just don't mesh with the way I think. If you ever work in the social work field, as I used to do, you realize how important the government is on a host of issues.. Paul seems more of the belief that very limited government is the best way, but we have tried that approach many times in our nations history and it has always, without a doubt, failed.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Paul is a mindless, empty headed, very dangerous person and should be treated as such. He makes Bush the second look like a genius, and, dat ain't easy!
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote: Paul is a mindless, empty headed, very dangerous person and should be treated as such. He makes Bush the second look like a genius, and, dat ain't easy!
    I don't know PR--I agree that he's dangerous, but I don't necessarily agree that he's mindless and empty-headed. He's a smart guy, but smart in a way that is detrimental to American society as a whole.

    Bush the second was easily the worst President in our nations history. Look at the shit show that the Middle-East is today and ask yourself if I'm wrong. Remember how Bush said invading Iraq would usher in peace in the Middle-East? How did that work out for him?

    Paul is dangerous because he seems to be willing to let the poor and middle class fend for themselves while allowing the super rich to become super richer. The other problem with him is that he strikes a chord with people who don't necessarily understand all the good things the federal government does for our society.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Just in time his real agendas start to come out. www.salon.com/2015/04/07/rand_pauls_terrifying_vision_for_america_the_truth_abo...

    I don't believe he is smart at all - very crafty and sneaky, and totally brainwashed by his dad (as often is the case with these typs). He will say and do anything to further his sick vision for society.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pgr -- I have to commend Rand Paul for putting out his 50 page vision of what his economic "freedom zones" would look like. I haven't read it, but trust Salon to have hit the meat of it...which is indeed scary as all hell. It should disqualify him from contention in a general election, but it sure meshes with the Koch brothers vision of privatization of the public sector. I saw right wing ads being run attacking Paul for agreeing with Obama on some issues. These crazies will knock out their own candidate for pandering to minorities.

    I don't expect any of the other candidates to put out a 50 page document of their vision for America. They know that that will hurt them down the line when they have to flip flop on issues like McCain and Romney did.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: pgr -- I have to commend Rand Paul for putting out his 50 page vision of what his economic "freedom zones" would look like. I haven't read it, but trust Salon to have hit the meat of it...which is indeed scary as all hell. It should disqualify him from contention in a general election, but it sure meshes with the Koch brothers vision of privatization of the public sector. I saw right wing ads being run attacking Paul for agreeing with Obama on some issues. These crazies will knock out their own candidate for pandering to minorities.

    I don't expect any of the other candidates to put out a 50 page document of their vision for America. They know that that will hurt them down the line when they have to flip flop on issues like McCain and Romney did.
    Yes Schmidt; looking at all the present candidates; they all got baggage and create new carbage; may be you can publish a book, on how to run a country. My guess is that 2016 will become a total "circus" entertainment show.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch -- One of the things that people don't understand is that we have three branches of government, and all three are flexing their muscle right now...Congress, SCOTUS, and of course the President. It doesn't matter who is elected, if Congress is full of "no compromise" Tea Party idiots, then we will be in for another four years of polarization.

    Politico has published this morning Rand Paul's views on a range of issues but surprisingly they make no mention of Paul's 50 page manifesto on "economic freedom zones", except that he wants a balanced budget as well as all the other candidates. As a student of CBB's economic Modern Monetary Theory, I will oppose anyone who demands a balanced budget, especially when it entails slashing social programs for the poor and middle class.

    Politico, April 7, 2015: Rand Paul’s policy views set him apart from Republican field
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Economic freedom zones...

    Translation: arbeit macht frei.

    No, not in the holocaust sense. Rather in the "road to serfdom" sense. Von Hayek, Friedman and others of their ilk including both Pauls fail to understand that the economy, the POLITICAL economy, does not exist in a vacuum. John Galt was fiction, humans are not rational actors and political economic theory is philosophy unrelated to the real world. The road to serfdom is a multi-lane highway and political corporatism or rand-ism and libertarianism are simply lanes on that superhighway.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: Economic freedom zones...

    Translation: arbeit macht frei.

    No, not in the holocaust sense. Rather in the "road to serfdom" sense. Von Hayek, Friedman and others of their ilk including both Pauls fail to understand that the economy, the POLITICAL economy, does not exist in a vacuum. John Galt was fiction, humans are not rational actors and political economic theory is philosophy unrelated to the real world. The road to serfdom is a multi-lane highway and political corporatism or rand-ism and libertarianism are simply lanes on that superhighway.
    Lonely; whatever this Paul's philosophy is; it does not matter much; the 1%, Koch brothers; the Pentagon; Wallstreet, the churches etc will tell him to jump and how high; a president or candidate does not run the show himself but has to adapt to the circle of influence in this country and the Washington tight knit society..
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Dutch -- One of the things that people don't understand is that we have three branches of government, and all three are flexing their muscle right now...Congress, SCOTUS, and of course the President. It doesn't matter who is elected, if Congress is full of "no compromise" Tea Party idiots, then we will be in for another four years of polarization.
    How true this is. I wish Americans understood our history more because they would realize that the polarization of American politics isn't new. There's hardly been a time that politics in America wasn't polarizing and today's age is no different.

    I wonder how many Americans know about Lincoln's detractors in the north (he only won his reelection by a little more than 400,000 votes and only votes in the North were counted). Or how Congress tried to impeach 'His Accidency,' John Tyler multiple times. The fights between the three branches of government date back as long as our Republic.

    And I agree. If Congress doesn't want to do anything then nothing will get done. That's the way our government works. Sometimes that's great--like when a right wing President wants to pass crazy legislation. And other times it's terrible--like when we are watching our planet warm, water run dry, and wildfires burn across large swaths of the country while we listen to our Congress debate how it can snow if it the planet is warming.
    Schmidt Wrote: Politico has published this morning Rand Paul's views on a range of issues but surprisingly they make no mention of Paul's 50 page manifesto on "economic freedom zones", except that he wants a balanced budget as well as all the other candidates. As a student of CBB's economic Modern Monetary Theory, I will oppose anyone who demands a balanced budget, especially when it entails slashing social programs for the poor and middle class.
    Politico really frustrates me sometimes. I'll find myself reading a really well researched article that I'm a big fan of and then find myself reading a piece that drives me nuts for being written like a news article but obviously being an opinion piece. I really think they need to do a better job of letting people know when a person who holds certain political beliefs is writing an article versus when an independent journalist is writing an article.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I actually find Politico to be very biased, although in an extremely sneaky way. I do not trust them at all, in fact, I consider them to be Fox News Light.
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    seem to recall that paul supports "sound money" whatever the hell that is.

    if he means gold then he is a buffoon.

    ALL currencies including gold are fiat currencies. gold only has value because humans decided that it does. beyond its engineering uses and the fact that it looks nice gold has no value whatsoever. rarity doesn't imply value arbitrarily. there are elements that are stable and more rare yet humans decided that gold was valuable. the amount of gold required to back the currency of the united states is more than the amount of gold that has been mined. plus any material that backs a currency must be fully convertible. if it isn't then there is no reason to use it. a country could lie about their reserves much like the reserve number of opec oil are closely guarded secrets.

    beyond that paul has no clue as to economics other than to spout nonsense that has been pushed by economists from the u. of chicago or elsewhere for years. when said theories fail, as they do, then the response is some external issue or something else caused their model to not work. hell, look at the criminal greenspan admitting to a "flaw" in his model. well, the flaw is humanity and the real world.

    i recall reading that economics suffers from hard science envy. physics, it ain't.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: seem to recall that paul supports "sound money" whatever the hell that is.

    if he means gold then he is a buffoon.

    ALL currencies including gold are fiat currencies. gold only has value because humans decided that it does. beyond its engineering uses and the fact that it looks nice gold has no value whatsoever. rarity doesn't imply value arbitrarily. there are elements that are stable and more rare yet humans decided that gold was valuable. the amount of gold required to back the currency of the united states is more than the amount of gold that has been mined. plus any material that backs a currency must be fully convertible. if it isn't then there is no reason to use it. a country could lie about their reserves much like the reserve number of opec oil are closely guarded secrets.

    beyond that paul has no clue as to economics other than to spout nonsense that has been pushed by economists from the u. of chicago or elsewhere for years. when said theories fail, as they do, then the response is some external issue or something else caused their model to not work. hell, look at the criminal greenspan admitting to a "flaw" in his model. well, the flaw is humanity and the real world.

    i recall reading that economics suffers from hard science envy. physics, it ain't.
    Lonely; indeed the economic's in this country are "misty" . Our government has plenty of undisclosed accounts. If you are running for President then of course you have to come with a "plan" ; either you spent it on wars; the rich; crazy projects; 400 million dollar planes each; navy ships which only use more money while sailing all over the globe and of course the NSA has to be paid. Just throw it all in a big pot and stir, bake it for 40 minutes and you are suited to become President.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote: I actually find Politico to be very biased, although in an extremely sneaky way. I do not trust them at all, in fact, I consider them to be Fox News Light.
    I wasn't a fan of their expose on Paul at all. Rich Lowery, a Republican operative, wrote the piece and nowhere in the piece does it say that Lowery is a Republican operative. So anyone who doesn't know who Rich Lowery is would just assume that he's an independent journalist writing about Rand Paul in a objective way. Any legitimate news source will always inform the viewer that they are about to read an opinion piece by a political operative, but Politico typically doesn't do that.

    I'd like to think that Rand doesn't stand a chance, but he definitely has a lively and excited base of support. That can not be refuted. I think that he would be a terrible President who will only exasperate the widening gap between rich and poor. I don't really get why people who hate government are so intent on running it. Maybe so they can destroy it from the inside? I don't know, but it's always irked me when a politician bashes our government because they work for the government they are bashing.