Hillary Clinton vs Rand Paul

If this ends up as the lineup for the 2016 election, who would you vote for and why?

For me, it's Rand Paul.

 

Oops, I didn't state why.

I like Rand Paul because most of his views jive with my Libertarian views. I also see him as an evolution of the GOP if they select him, as he doesn't spend his time complaining about social liberalism.

 

Well, it has to be Neither/Third Party for me in this poll.

Paul: I like his commitment to remaining within constitutional bounds and striving for limited government, scaling back defense spending, reducing U.S. military presence abroad, respecting personal privacy, and I also sympathize with his stance of opposing state efforts to stimulate or oft intervene unnecessarily in the economy. I like his positions on marijuana and the Social Security retirement age, yet do not see eye to eye with him on animal rights, the environment, how to balance the budget, LGBT rights, or on how to interact with the United Nations. He is too nationalist, superstitious, and steeped in classical liberalism's devotion to free enterprise for my tastes. There is a clear ideological rift betwixt us.

Clinton: Her positions on animal, civil, and voting rights appeal to me for the most part. Hillary takes positions on health care, criminal justice, aid for other countries, environmental issues, welfare, and church-state debates more to my liking than her opponent's. But at the same time I must object to her support for the War on Drugs and death penalty, many of her stances on the economy, her support for banning flag burning, and some of her views on foreign policy issues (e.g. strongly backing Israel in its conflict with Palestine, expanding NATO into Eastern Europe, and favoring U.S. hegemony in international affairs). While I suspect Clinton and I share many values, she is too communitarian and is not far enough lef-of-centre, overall, for me to feel we are on the same "side" in terms of competing political factions.

To some extent or another I disagree with both of the candidates on subjects including abortion, affirmative action, comprehensive election and campaign reforms, cooperativization, criminal justice, energy, globalism, gun control, immigration, income inequality, international relations, taxation, voting rights, and welfare.

 

Clinton is old.

(At least we wouldn't have to worry about the threat of her starting WWIII every time she has her, uh, punctuation.)

Rand Paul is reasonable, but most Americans are moronic (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s.

You deserve the government you have!

 

I honestly don't understand the age argument. McCain was in his early seventies when he ran in '08. Clinton will be 69 in 2016.

 

Let's just say. . .

I don't want a woman in the Oval Office. I would much rather see her in a more womanly role.

She should trade in her pantsuit for a dress and apron -- or, better yet, just walk around the house in the nude. After all, a woman's duty is to always be sexually available for her man.

I'm horny for Hillary. . .

(I should get a job writing campaign slogans.)

 

Do you seriously believe a woman shouldn't be in the oval office? What would your opinion be of more conservative women like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann being the president?

 

We need another Clinton in the White House, like we need another Bush in office.

 

Hillary is still viable. She even looks cool with those funky specs.

 

Hillary,will be the next President,Rand Paul,and all the Conser.Repub's are living back in the stone age.The world and U.S.A. have change and left those two party's behind in the stone age.They're the only one's that don't know it,remember the last election ?

 

I'd go with Rand Paul. Here's why....

Name ONE accomplishment from Hillary Clinton during any of her time in office. What has she actually DONE?

... I can't think of anything. Not as Senator or Secretary of State.

 

The brain-dead drones that voted for Obama will vote for Hillary without a second thought.

Since they never in their lives had a first thought, they're incapable of having a second one.

Obviously Rand Paul, or even Mussolini, would be less disgusting than Hillary What Difference Does it Make Clinton.

But we should push for the commie (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to get the nomination, since her baggage is massive.

 

Sarah Palin would make a GREAT president, almost as good as Reagan.

Hillary Clinton would move King Obama, Fascist and Traitor, into third place, with Wilson being the worst president in US history. Given that the last fifty years have seen Carter, and then GW Bush, and now King Obama, Fascist and Traitor, all taking their turn as third worst ever, can we even begin to comprehend the price yet another awful president will cost us?

 

Although I would go with Rand Paul, it's like a zero percent chance that could beat Hillary. The media will be actively supporting Hillary and given how much of a difference that made in the last Presidential election, I don't see how he could win.

 

What Hillary has always done, is what Hillary ALWAYS does....

....she promotes herself.

It's a DemocRAT thing. Hence King Obama's Campaign of the Permanent Campaign.

 

Sadly, you're right. The prospect of the first female president is too good for the media to pass up.

In other words, people will vote for her the same way they voted for Obama. More preference on race or gender over their politics.

 

Right because a dem got elected that obviously means the republicans are completely irrelevant.

She ignored security warnings in benghazi that led to four people losing their lives....

Oh wait you said accomplishments? Oh yea, shes a woman. That should be enough you bigot.

Benghazi will effectively ruin her campaign. The attack ads are probably in the making atm.

 

I worked on a pair of CDC projects when Senator Clinton was in office; VODS and PanFlu. She was on the once-a-month beltway call. She genuinely cared about children getting their shots and about USA being ready for a pandemic flu. I would vote for her in a heartbeat because of who she is, even though I dislike most of her party's platform and almost always vote Libertarian. In the past 20+ years the only time I didn't vote LP was when I voted for our present POTUS, Mr. Obama. I think the world of him, and think the world of her too. Shame her husband was so dishonest in their marriage; but her hanging with it and making it work also speaks volumes to her character and her passion for the foundation of marriage and family.

 

McCain would have been president had he picked Lieberman like he wanted to. It was a huge mistake to pick Palin. I don't think anyone voted for Obama just because of race - he speaks well, presents well to the camera, and is a great American. I just feel McCain was led astray by his advisors. He is an American hero, great politician, and should have trusted his gut instead of some idiotic talking heads yapping about their polls. Why he picked someone with 18 months as a Governor and few years as the mayor of a town of 10K people; I will never understand.......

 

It speaks volumes, all righty.

She knew he was a sexual predator, and stayed with him to ride the pervert to the White House and a political career for herself. She took bribes to cover the trial leading to him. Her Rose Law firm billing records conveniently disappeared, and inconveniently reappeared...in her White House bedroom.

She did nothing for her constituents in New York. Why should she, since she didn't care about them or the state; she was nothing but a carpetbagging trash taking a seat from the people for her own use.

As Suckretary of State, she did nothing for the people of the United States, but some of that failure was at the command of King Obama, Fascist and Traitor. Having no honor, she didn't resign.

It's now proven that she's responsible for the deaths in Benghazi, and unlike her statement, yes, it (*)(*)(*)(*)ing matters.

She's never accomplished anything on her own, she's always gotten promoted by reason of her connection with others.

She's the perfect RAT follow-on for King Obama, Fascist and Traitor. People stupid enough to vote for Obama simply because he was half-black are certainly stupid enough to vote for this broad because she vaguely resembles a human female.

 

Of course, that isn't true.

McCain's numbers went up when he declared Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Of course, he couldn't have his numbers rise, so he sabotaged his own campaign by taking a break to play "Senator" when the banks collapsed on the schedule the DemocRATs demanded.

Yeah, the DemocRATs are still terrified of her, hence the permanent state of character assassination.

Unlike most GOP candidates and ALL DemocRAT candidates, Palin is a real American.

Your first three words are self-evident, your conclusion is incorrect.

He reads a teleprompter, and is so stupid he can't pronounce the word "corpsman" correctly, indicating that not only does he not practice his speeches, but he, and all his staff, are idiots.

No, he's always been a turn-coat, which is why the RATs worked so hard to get him to run in 2000, since their idiot Al Gore couldn't swing it reliably. Thanks, Ralphie!

Getting caught and being made a POW doesn't make him a hero. And creating an entire career out of getting your multimillion dollar airplane shot out from under you isn't constructive.

Only DemocRATS consider sell-outs to be "great politicians". The Americans consider him a traitor.

He's ALL gut, no brains. He's also no honor, no decency, no patriotism, and no integrity.

Because she was a real American, unlike him, a real conservative, unlike him, a real patriot, unlike him, and a real person, unlike him. She also, unlike him, served the interests of the people of her state.

Yeah, the RATS hate Sarah Palin. The Mayor will vote for her. Head to head against Hitlery, there's no contest. Moose killers can kill RATS, too.

 

The Broom party's Richard Donegal in 2016

 

This whle rant is silly and demonstrates that you have no idea of what real people think!

It is not hatred hat people have for Palin, it is contempt with a little pity for her mixture of ignorance and arrogance.

 

I've thought about this, and think you have a reasonable point.

However, I tend to disagree. I believe, if in fact she runs, she will do an about face on the Benghazi ordeal and/or her involvement, laying blame squarely at Obama and Biden's doorstep.

Using it as an opportunity to diminish any hope of successfully campaigning that Biden might have, while further distancing her name from any remaining negative consequences.


She is a polished politician, as well as intelligent and shrewd.


If she still wants the Presidency, I believe it's hers for the taking. ~ (at this point in time)

 

What difference does it make, so long as she can make $100,000 in her first and only foray into the cattle futures market?