Board Republicans, Why Are You Not Supporting Rand Paul?

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 16:48

1. More sensible foreign policy than Trump, Rubio, or Cruz.
2. Truly believes in limited government and the importance of protecting the economy from government intervention.
3. Strongly believes in personal responsibility and is steadfast in his protection of civil liberties.
4. Can separate his religion from his politics (unlike Cruz).

Seems like he should be a pretty good choice. Why can't his campaign get any traction?

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2016-01-20, 16:54

Because Muslims and walls and shit.

by **The_Dude** 2016-01-20, 17:00

Not a Republican but Rand is terrible with the media whereas Trump is a media maestro. Plays them like a fiddle.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 17:01

The_Dude wrote:Because he's terrible with the media whereas Trump is a media mastro. Plays them like a fiddle.

You're not supporting him because he is terrible with the media?

by **The_Dude** 2016-01-20, 17:03

Turtleneck wrote:
The_Dude wrote:Because he's terrible with the media whereas Trump is a media mastro. Plays them like a fiddle.

You're not supporting him because he is terrible with the media?

No its why his campaign really never gained traction. He's wayyy too combative.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 17:07

I agree that Paul is lousy with the media, but it is more his dull personality than anything else. He does not have the pastor-like skills of Cruz or the bravado of Trump. He is combative, but so is Trump to some extent. Trump does not fight in interviews like Paul has in the past, but he certainly goes nuts on Twitter and during his speeches.

by **tGreenWay** 2016-01-20, 17:09

Turtleneck wrote:
The_Dude wrote:Because he's terrible with the media whereas Trump is a media mastro. Plays them like a fiddle.

You're not supporting him because he is terrible with the media?

He's not supporting him because Paul doesn't want to bomb the shit out of everybody with skin color that doesn't match his own.

by **Vlad** 2016-01-20, 17:11

Turtleneck wrote:1. More sensible foreign policy than Trump, Rubio, or Cruz.
2. Truly believes in limited government and the importance of protecting the economy from government intervention.
3. Strongly believes in personal responsibility and is steadfast in his protection of civil liberties.
4. Can separate his religion from his politics (unlike Cruz).

Seems like he should be a pretty good choice. Why can't his campaign get any traction?

Because Republicans have no idea what they really want. They just know they're angry and don't like ObamaCare. Everything else...."yeah sure, whatever".

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 17:15

tGreenWay wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

You're not supporting him because he is terrible with the media?

He's not supporting him because Paul doesn't want to bomb the shit out of everybody with skin color that doesn't match his own.

I bet The Dude spray tans.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 17:18

Vlad wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:1. More sensible foreign policy than Trump, Rubio, or Cruz.
2. Truly believes in limited government and the importance of protecting the economy from government intervention.
3. Strongly believes in personal responsibility and is steadfast in his protection of civil liberties.
4. Can separate his religion from his politics (unlike Cruz).

Seems like he should be a pretty good choice. Why can't his campaign get any traction?

Because Republicans have no idea what they really want. They just know they're angry and don't like ObamaCare. Everything else...."yeah sure, whatever".

I can see why a traditional conservative - somebody who believes in a high degree of order in society - would be opposed to Paul. But the rest of the conservatives that vote Republican should like this guy.

by **tGreenWay** 2016-01-20, 17:24

Turtleneck wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

He's not supporting him because Paul doesn't want to bomb the shit out of everybody with skin color that doesn't match his own.

I bet The Dude spray tans.

Found The Douche on the interwebs:

http://terribletans.com/2015/07/orange-face/

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-01-20, 17:26

Turtleneck wrote:
The_Dude wrote:Because he's terrible with the media whereas Trump is a media mastro. Plays them like a fiddle.

You're not supporting him because he is terrible with the media?

Fox News tells Mr. Lebowski what to think.

Therefore, yes.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 17:35

tGreenWay wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

I bet The Dude spray tans.

Found The Douche on the interwebs:

http://terribletans.com/2015/07/orange-face/

The Dude would never support bombing New Jersey.

by **Ass Dan** 2016-01-20, 17:35

Paul's foreign policy is bad and his views on 'ending the fed' indicate that he has no idea how the world economy works.

He's not really a republican as much as he is conservative and the points he is trying to get elected on having nothing to do with God or War, so it's tough to get idiots to vote for you, which you need if you're going to be president

by **The_Dude** 2016-01-20, 17:38

Ass Dan wrote:Paul's foreign policy is bad and his views on 'ending the fed' indicate that he has no idea how the world economy works.

He's not really a republican as much as he is conservative and the points he is trying to get elected on having nothing to do with God or War, so it's tough to get idiots to vote for you, which you need if you're going to be president

Didn't he sponsor an 'end the Fed' bill?

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 17:48

Ass Dan wrote:Paul's foreign policy is bad and his views on 'ending the fed' indicate that he has no idea how the world economy works.

He's not really a republican as much as he is conservative and the points he is trying to get elected on having nothing to do with God or War, so it's tough to get idiots to vote for you, which you need if you're going to be president

Republican is a party label. It is not an ideology. As a party, like the Democrats, it is home to a fair amount of ideological variance. I would argue he is a libertarian even though he calls himself conservative. As I said above, I understand why traditional conservatives do not find him appealing. However, the more libertarian leaning conservatives in the Republican Party should like Paul.

Although you do not like his foreign policy, it is probably better than what the three leading Republicans have offered. It is based on unilateral military engagement only when vital interests are at stake. Unlike somebody like Rubio (or Clinton), his foreign policy is not about remaking the world in America's image.

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-01-20, 17:54

Yo Turtleneck -

Why do I keep hearing Republicans talk about rebuilding our military? Don't we spend the same amount as the next 8 countries with the most powerful militaries combined? Is this just a talking point that the republican voting base eats up regardless of facts or am I missing something?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2016-01-20, 18:06

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Yo Turtleneck -

Why do I keep hearing Republicans talk about rebuilding our military? Don't we spend the same amount as the next 8 countries with the most powerful militaries combined? Is this just a talking point that the republican voting base eats up regardless of facts or am I missing something?

It's not just a talking point. They actually want and feel that we need to spend even more money on our military despite the ass tons that we already spend.

Then they cry about how Democrats spend too much.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 18:27

Spending does not necessarily equate to strength. However, you are correct, the U.S. outspends the rest of the world by a large margin. I would also add the U.S. has both unrivaled naval capabilities and unparalleled reach. This is before considering our nuclear capabilities.

First, let me say that power is hard to measure. Next, when you do measure power, it should be understood in relative terms. How powerful is the U.S. relative to other powerful states? The answer is decidedly in our favor. Furthermore, some Republicans and Democrats make the classic mistake of confusing power with influence. Pouring money into the military, while it would expand our capabilities, does not give us any more influence than before. Last, U.S. power and influence is in relative decline. While the U.S. is more powerful than any other country, and still has considerable influence relative to other countries, both are in decline. Contrary to popular belief, this pre-dates Obama. It has been that way for some time. Bush did a great disservice to American power and influence.

So there is some truth to the Republican claims you reference, but it is mainly a talking point. It is way for Republicans to continue to monopolize discussions about national security, where they are perceived to be stronger than Democrats. In any event, the decline must be managed delicately. Throwing money at the problem - massively increasing our military capabilities - is not an effective way to manage our decline.

by Guest 2016-01-20, 18:28

He doesn't favor bombing enough towelheads.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 18:29

LooseGoose wrote:He doesn't favor bombing enough towelheads.

I am starting to think he can't gain traction because he does not want a foreign policy that comes from a Hollywood script.

by **xsanguine** 2016-01-20, 19:27

I liked his dad... Rand rubs me the wrong way but I forget why. Wrote him off years ago for some reason... maybe it'll come back to me but there's been a lot of pots smoked in that time so no promises.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-01-20, 19:28

xsanguine wrote:I liked his dad....Rand rubs me the wrong way but I forget why. Wrote him off years ago for some reason... maybe it'll come back to me but there's been a lot of pots smoked in that time so no promises.

Tell us more

by **xsanguine** 2016-01-20, 19:29

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:I liked his dad....Rand rubs me the wrong way but I forget why. Wrote him off years ago for some reason... maybe it'll come back to me but there's been a lot of pots smoked in that time so no promises.

Tell us more

We'd have to go back to that 1800 grit sandpaper and I've tried blocking that memory out...

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-03, 12:29

...and the real limited government candidate among the Republican crowd is gone from the race...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-presidential-race/index.html

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-03, 12:37

Turtleneck wrote:...and the real limited government candidate among the Republican crowd is gone from the race...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-presidential-race/index.html

republicans are only for "limited government" when it doesn't benefit them or their constituents (white people) directly. Otherwise, they're the biggest advocates out there for big government.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-03, 12:40

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:...and the real limited government candidate among the Republican crowd is gone from the race...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-presidential-race/index.html
republicans are only for "limited government" when it doesn't benefit them or their constituents (white people) directly. Otherwise, they're the biggest advocates out there for big government.

Rand and his father have a strong libertarian streak. I think he is rather genuine in his belief that government should be limited. By no means am I on board with Rand Paul, but I sympathize with many of his concerns about government.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-03, 12:43

Turtleneck wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:
republicans are only for "limited government" when it doesn't benefit them or their constituents (white people) directly. Otherwise, they're the biggest advocates out there for big government.

Rand and his father have a strong libertarian streak. I think he is rather genuine in his belief that government should be limited. By no means am I on board with Rand Paul, but I sympathize with many of his concerns about government.

I hear ya..

but that's the reason he's no longer in the race. His views are true to the limited government concept unlike the run of the mill "get government out of my life" Republicans who basically mean "poor people and black people need to stop being poor and black".

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** 2016-02-03, 12:51

Rand seemed like one of the lone sane Republican candidates.

by **Giant Moose** 2016-02-03, 12:52

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Rand seemed like one of the lone sane Republican candidates.

He finished 5th in Iowa. He is a loser. Only the last 4 deserve our support.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2016-02-03, 12:53

Too bad, I had recently started following him on Twitter to learn more as an alternative to Frump and Cruz

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-03, 12:55

Floyd Robertson wrote:Too bad, I had recently started following him on Twitter to learn more as an alternative to Frump and Cruz

he's too rational to run for president in the modern republican party. It would truly suck to be a logical, rational republican trying to find someone to support. Kasich might be the only option.

by **Dr. Strangelove** 2016-02-03, 12:55

Board Republicans, Why Are You Not Supporting Rand Paul? CWh1OqeUEAEyMbP

The clear choice

by **Floyd Robertson** 2016-02-03, 12:58

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:Too bad, I had recently started following him on Twitter to learn more as an alternative to Frump and Cruz
he's too rational to run for president in the modern republican party. It would truly suck to be a logical, rational republican trying to find someone to support. Kasich might be the only option.

It truly suck to be a logical voter and find any desirable presidential candidate.

I'm going to start the movement to draft Mitt at the RNC.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-03, 13:05

Floyd Robertson wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:
he's too rational to run for president in the modern republican party. It would truly suck to be a logical, rational republican trying to find someone to support. Kasich might be the only option.

It truly suck to be a logical voter and find any desirable presidential candidate.

I'm going to start the movement to draft Mitt at the RNC.

true - the nature of the system is to discourage any worthwhile person from running.

I'm not a Hillary fan.. Bernie is okay but I'm smart enough to know that the United States is not going to elect a 70+ year old Jewish guy who is a self-proclaimed socialist.

luckily my life isn't dependent upon who runs our government.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-03, 15:50

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:Too bad, I had recently started following him on Twitter to learn more as an alternative to Frump and Cruz
he's too rational to run for president in the modern republican party. It would truly suck to be a logical, rational republican trying to find someone to support. Kasich might be the only option.

Rand was not all that pragmatic. He is fairly rigid. Because of that, I would not call him sane. His libertarianism draws some appeal, especially from younger voters who want to be able to get high and not pay a lot of taxes.

If you want pragmatic and not overtly ideological, a guy that has your conservative principles in mind but also wants to make government work, Kasich is that guy. Sure, he karate chops when he talks, but he also knows how to govern. He is a guy that most people could probably live with as a president.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-03, 15:51

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:

It truly suck to be a logical voter and find any desirable presidential candidate.

I'm going to start the movement to draft Mitt at the RNC.
true - the nature of the system is to discourage any worthwhile person from running.

I'm not a Hillary fan.. Bernie is okay but I'm smart enough to know that the United States is not going to elect a 70+ year old Jewish guy who is a self-proclaimed socialist.

luckily my life isn't dependent upon who runs our government.

Who makes the rules you live by everyday? Who collects your taxes, or says you have to outfit your bike with a 15ft pole and orange flag? Forget the last one. I forgot you live in Michigan and not Missouri.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-02-03, 15:55

Turtleneck wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:
he's too rational to run for president in the modern republican party. It would truly suck to be a logical, rational republican trying to find someone to support. Kasich might be the only option.

Rand was not all that pragmatic. He is fairly rigid. Because of that, I would not call him sane. His libertarianism draws some appeal, especially from younger voters who want to be able to get high and not pay a lot of taxes.

If you want pragmatic and not overtly ideological, a guy that has your conservative principles in mind but also wants to make government work, Kasich is that guy. Sure, he karate chops when he talks, but he also knows how to govern. He is a guy that most people could probably live with as a president.

I've said it before, I'd consider voting for Kasich of Hillary.

of course, the GOP is too dumb to nominate a sane candidate with executive-level government experience.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-03, 16:00

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

Rand was not all that pragmatic. He is fairly rigid. Because of that, I would not call him sane. His libertarianism draws some appeal, especially from younger voters who want to be able to get high and not pay a lot of taxes.

If you want pragmatic and not overtly ideological, a guy that has your conservative principles in mind but also wants to make government work, Kasich is that guy. Sure, he karate chops when he talks, but he also knows how to govern. He is a guy that most people could probably live with as a president.
I've said it before, I'd consider voting for Kasich of Hillary.

of course, the GOP is too dumb to nominate a sane candidate with executive-level government experience.

Kasich of Hillary sounds so royal.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-06, 10:55

Turtleneck wrote: voters who want to be able to get high and not pay a lot of taxes.

That's one way to put it...

by Sponsored content