Rand Paul for President

[g5000]

Rand Paul is tough when it comes to our liberties...

Armed drones over America BAD!



Rand Paul is also tough on crime...

Killing liquor store holdup man with drones GOOD!


The message brought to you by the Democratic Committe for Rand Paul for President.

 

[PredFan]

Democrats thought they would get an early start by Bashing Christie. Then they bashed Romney just in case he ran. Then they bashed Jeb Bush. They've been bashing Ted Cruz, just in case he ran. Now its Rand Paul. The standing ovations Paul got at Berkeley must have rattled them.

They are just ranting wing nuts.

 

[g5000]

Democrats thought they would get an early start by Bashing Christie. Then they bashed Romney just in case he ran. Then they bashed Jeb Bush. They've been bashing Ted Cruz, just in case he ran. Now its Rand Paul. The standing ovations Paul got at Berkeley must have rattled them.

Meanwhile, the Right has been exercising incredible restraint by not going after Hillary yet.


Oh, wait...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats thought they would get an early start by Bashing Christie. Then they bashed Romney just in case he ran. Then they bashed Jeb Bush. They've been bashing Ted Cruz, just in case he ran. Now its Rand Paul. The standing ovations Paul got at Berkeley must have rattled them.

Meanwhile, the Right has been exercising incredible restraint by not going after Hillary yet.


Oh, wait...

What difference does Hillary make?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[auditor0007]

No matter who runs the election will be near 50/50... Making the OP and RW dumb as chit as per usual.

Normally, I would agree, but in 2016 I do expect a Democratic landslide victory, and I expect it to be so bad that Republicans will lose the House too. Things are changing. The electorate is changing. You won't see it at USMB, but it's happening on Main Street. Sure there is still a strong conservative base; there probably always will be, but many who considered themselves conservative have moved back to the middle, and younger people are staying more liberal. That added to the fact that Hispanics are growing in number and Republicans have done very little to persuade them to even look at the party, well the writing is on the wall.

 

[Political Junky]

Should be interesting to watch Rand debate Liz Warren

I'd love to see that, too. Elizabeth Warren would destroy Rand Paul.

 

[Toro]

The idea that what Rand Paul said about Dick Cheney's history of comments about Iraq vs. his actions as CEO and Veep is "bark at the moon lunacy" shows that the WSJ is not interested in alternate narratives that upset the Republican Establishment apple cart.

Actually, at the moment, he's my choice in the Republican primaries.

However, if he's playing footsies with loony twoofers, I have zero interest in making this man President.

 

[Synthaholic]

From the Right-Wing Wall Street Journal:




Rand Paul for President

Because what the GOP needs is a humbling landslide defeat



Republicans, let's get it over with. Fast forward to the finish line. Avoid the long and winding primary road. It can only weaken the nominee. And we know who he—yes, he—has to be.

Not Jeb Bush, who plainly is unsuited to be president. He is insufficiently hostile to Mexicans. He holds heretical views on the Common Core, which, as we well know, is the defining issue of our time. And he's a Bush. Another installment of a political dynasty just isn't going to fly with the American people, who want some fresh blood in their politics.

Unless the dynasty is named Clinton. Or Kennedy. Or Nunn. Or Carter. Or, come to think of it, Paul. In that case, dynasties are just fine, thank you.

*snip*

No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.

This man is Rand Paul, the junior senator from a state with eight electoral votes. The man who, as of this writing, has three years worth of experience in elected office. Barack Obama had more political experience when he ran for president.


*snip*


"When the Iraq war started, Halliburton got a billion-dollar no-bid contract. Some of the stuff has been so shoddy and so sloppy that our soldiers are over there dying in the shower from electrocution."

Then he gets to his real point: Dick Cheney, who opposed driving all the way to Baghdad when he was defense secretary in the first Bush administration, later went to work for Halliburton. "Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good thing to go into Iraq."

Mr. Paul's conclusion: "9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq."

Cui bono—to whose benefit? It's the signature question of every conspiracy theorist with an unhinged mind. C heney. Halliburton. Big Oil. The military-industrial complex. Neocons. 9/11. Soldiers electrocuted in the shower. It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

If Mr. Paul wants to accuse the former vice president of engineering a war in Iraq so he could shovel some profits over to his past employer, he should come out and say so explicitly. Ideally at the next Heritage Action powwow. Let's not mince words. This man wants to be the Republican nominee for president.

And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.

Thanks for letting us know who you are most afraid of.

Yes, because that's how you should decide who runs the country. Idiot.

 

[Synthaholic]

The idea that what Rand Paul said about Dick Cheney's history of comments about Iraq vs. his actions as CEO and Veep is "bark at the moon lunacy" shows that the WSJ is not interested in alternate narratives that upset the Republican Establishment apple cart.

Actually, at the moment, he's my choice in the Republican primaries.

However, if he's playing footsies with loony twoofers, I have zero interest in making this man President.

He already played footsie with his Confederate views, with his handling of the Southern Avenger fiasco.

 

[Katzndogz]

Rand Paul must really be scaring democrats for them to be going after his father like they are. The demo are trying to create another law to break.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rand Paul must really be scaring democrats for them to be going after his father like they are. The demo are trying to create another law to break.

Correct.

Democrats are in fact scared to death of Paul.

They know he’ll defeat HRC in a landslide, and will do anything to keep him from being your nominee.

 

[dblack]

Rand Paul must really be scaring democrats for them to be going after his father like they are. The demo are trying to create another law to break.

Correct.

Democrats are in fact scared to death of Paul.

They know he’ll defeat HRC in a landslide, and will do anything to keep him from being your nominee.

Of course not. But what they are scared of is that he'll highlight Democrat hypocrisy, particularly their enthusiasm for authoritarian corporatism and war.

 

[Synthaholic]

Rand Paul must really be scaring democrats for them to be going after his father like they are. The demo are trying to create another law to break.

Correct.

Democrats are in fact scared to death of Paul.

They know he’ll defeat HRC in a landslide, and will do anything to keep him from being your nominee.

Of course not. But what they are scared of is that he'll highlight Democrat hypocrisy, particularly their enthusiasm for authoritarian corporatism and war.

How could he highlight it with no examples of it?

 

[dr.d]

Rand Paul must really be scaring democrats for them to be going after his father like they are. The demo are trying to create another law to break.

Correct.

Democrats are in fact scared to death of Paul.

They know he’ll defeat HRC in a landslide, and will do anything to keep him from being your nominee.

Of course not. But what they are scared of is that he'll highlight Democrat hypocrisy, particularly their enthusiasm for authoritarian corporatism and war.

What the HELL r u talking about?!
The conservative side of SCOTUS gave corporations free rein to sway elections by further unleashing their moneys...and the Right Wing either IS big money or lives in their pockets...and the only war hawks we hear these days r McCain "bomb bomb Iran" and his old school GOP cronies...
No Dems at all talking war.
Please get ur facts straight before launching ur talking points.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rand Paul must really be scaring democrats for them to be going after his father like they are. The demo are trying to create another law to break.

Correct.

Democrats are in fact scared to death of Paul.

They know he’ll defeat HRC in a landslide, and will do anything to keep him from being your nominee.

Of course not. But what they are scared of is that he'll highlight Democrat hypocrisy, particularly their enthusiasm for authoritarian corporatism and war.

Nah, old news; everyone's known that for years, and known the same about the GOP.

No, Democrats are truly afraid of Paul.

 

[dr.d]

Nobody's "bashing" Christi...he is being handled w kid gloves considering his bully tactics, taxpayer subsidized manipulations to show "innocence" and the stench of corruption and scandal that surrounds his administration...
That cretin not only "made his own bed", he tries to drag our state in behind him. We won't let that happen...he will be EXPOSED for the charlatan he is when the bedsheets r pulled back....
As for Rand...I've seen Rachel make mincemeat out of him...and she's much kinder than Hillary. It will be fun to watch Hill take Rand apart if he gets put up against her.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[KevinWestern]

Republicans, let's get it over with. Fast forward to the finish line. Avoid the long and winding primary road. It can only weaken the nominee. And we know who he—yes, he—has to be.

Less important is if the candidate is Republican or Democrat; more important is his/her sincerity, genuineness, and ability to keep campaign promises.

Under these guidelines both George Bush and Barack Obama would be thrown out.

 

[g5000]

Rand Paul must really be scaring democrats for them to be going after his father like they are.

Yeah. It isn't like Rand Paul went after Hillary through her husband.


Oh, wait...

 

[g5000]

No matter who runs the election will be near 50/50... Making the OP and RW dumb as chit as per usual.

Normally, I would agree, but in 2016 I do expect a Democratic landslide victory, and I expect it to be so bad that Republicans will lose the House too.

I don't.

In 2008, no matter who the Democrats chose, that person was going to get elected since the economy went into Armageddon mode on Bush's watch. But remember the bitter fight between Obama and Clinton during the primaries and how it was ripping the party apart?

Yeah.

In 2012, the Democrats had an incumbent up for re-election, so that strife was not there on their side of the ballot. The Republicans, on the other hand, had a bad of dildos all competing for the office and they ripped themselves and the party to shreds.

In 2016, all bets are off. Both parties are each going to have a car full of clowns putting on a slapstick show. Expect exhausting reruns of "bimbo eruptions" and Biden's plagiarism.

 

[dblack]

Correct.

Democrats are in fact scared to death of Paul.

They know he’ll defeat HRC in a landslide, and will do anything to keep him from being your nominee.

Of course not. But what they are scared of is that he'll highlight Democrat hypocrisy, particularly their enthusiasm for authoritarian corporatism and war.

How could he highlight it with no examples of it?

Heh.. ok. Democrats, ostrich up!