Hillary Clinton vs Rand Paul

I choose Hillary Clinton, I always liked her, and it's time for a woman president (it's 2013! wake up!).

 

If that is actually the choice in 2016, I would vote Clinton, as would close to 60% of the electorate.
I doubt that will be the choice however.
Rand Paul may inherit his father's supporters, but he'll also inherit his father's enemies, that's not enough to even come close to the GOP nomination.

Hillary?
If the election were held today, she'd win in a landslide over anyone. But there is a lot of time for Democrats to maneuver into the nomination.
The desire for a female candidate may propel someone like Kirsten Gillibrand into the picture, the Castro brothers will get a bigger share of the convention, maybe a VP nod.
The last open Democratic nomination was 5 years ago, and the next one is three years from now, I seriously doubt it picks up where it left off with the same candidates.

 

I have nothing against a woman president, but it's stupid to vote for her because of her gender.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems like Rand Paul isn't doing as much. Ted Cruz seems to be the star of the Republicans at the moment, so it will be interesting.

 

Ted Cruz.

 

Ive always been troubled by libertarians lol, I think republicans are a lost cause and are just way to far off the deep end whereas libertarians are about in the middle but I dont understand how intelligent people could promote something as horrible as Social Darwinism? (otherwise known as unregulated capitalism).

 

Personal attacks? ROFLMAO.

 

That's not correct. LP just feels that charity starts at home. They don't want to see people eating from dumpsters or living in boxes under bridges. They want communities to organize and help their own people. Churches, not-for-profits, etc. are WAY better at charity than some doosh-canoes sitting at fancy desks in Washington DC. You see, people on the ground in those communities are in way better touch with the needs of that community than some moron like John McSame or Obama Bin Biden.

 

So you think volunteer charity is more effective than government welfare and social security? Thats just ridiculous. Sorry but it is, and when people do perform charity most of the time its for a reason such as to proselytize your religion or political idea.

 

People with the religion of socialism BELIEVE that if government is big enough, it will take care of everyone.

People who aren't stupid enough to BELIEVE in the religion of socialism KNOW that socialism encourages freeloaders, and the socialist leaders encourage the free-loaders because freeloaders vote for the biggetst thieves....so long as they get their cut.

Libertarians don't believe in the religion of socailism and know the best cure for freeloaders is local charities refusing to help them.

 

I think it's interesting how sure some of you are about Hillary. A landslide victory for a Democrat after the failing two terms of Obama (I'm certain the 2nd term will fail, if he continues in the same direction as term 1, which he is)? Obamacare will assure a Republican victory in 2016.

Also, don't sell Rand Paul short. He's not his father. He's very Conservative with libertarian leanings. Conservatives and Libertarians should both feel comfortable voting for him.

 

I said if the election were held today, Hillary would get 60% of the vote, that's a landslide.
I also said that three years is a long time and there are a lot of people who are working on their presidential campaigns even now.

As far as 2016, what can Obama do to handicap the Democratic party more than it was handicapped in 2012. Presidents rarely win with the kind of economic numbers that Obama had going into 2012, yet he won handily.
Because the demographics of the electorate are changing, if the 2012 Demographics were like the 2004 Demographics, Romney wins.
But in just 8 years, the demographics change enough so that Obama wins easily.
The demographics in 2016 are going to be even more skewed than they were in 2012.
Now Demographics aren't the be-all end-all, there could still be an issue that overwhelms the demographics, but I doubt that issue will be a 6 year old law that seems to be working OK, and by 2016 ObamaCare will seem to be working OK.


As far as Rand Paul goes, he'll get the people who voted for his father, but he'll also lose the people who despised his father, and that is not an insignificant percent of the GOP.
And he just doesn't have the appeal to the average GOP voter, I just don't see him taking off nationally to where he could win the nomination.

 

Obamacare is already being exposed as the bomb it is and it's exploding in the faces of Obama's supporters on a daily basis - especially those in California. Give it another 3 years and you're going to have people asking for Obama's head. http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area

That being said, I think the government shutdown is backfiring. Obama wants to make it difficult for Americans, closing things that normally wouldn't be closed during a shutdown. People hate it, so it worked in that respect, but people know what's happening... and they're already voicing their opinions about Obama's new world. I think that if the election were today, Conservatives would have a landslide victory.

There are two things that Conservatives didn't like about Ron Paul... ok maybe three. They didn't like his foreign policy, they didn't like his policy on drugs and they didn't like his voice/demeanor. These three things are basically amended with a Rand Paul.

 

After Benghazi and other State Dept failures, Hillary will never be President of anything but the Chappaqua, NY woman's Rotary Club.

 

Rand Paul will probably make it further than his father did, but that's not saying much. I can't see Hillary Clinton ever debating Rand Paul.

 

Depending on available third party candidates, plus how close the race seems to be, I'd either be voting Hillary or third party.

Under no circumstances would I ever vote for a lunatic (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag like Rand Paul.

 

Clinton #1 Passed the Following in the name of free trade which pretty much killed all manufacturing in our country.
NAFTA
GATT

Who in their right mind wants more of that?

http://www.rense.com/general76/cclle.htm

 

While I agree with most of Rand Paul's views (except some international stuff) he has said some very stupid things in the past that will kill him in the election. The one that pops into mind immediately is when he said it was wrong for the Feds to step in and force schools to allow black kids in way way way way back in the 80s or 90s or something. Even from a Libertarians standpoint that is just absurd since the states were clearly violating the Constitutional guarantees about life liberty and property in the 14th amendment.

 

By the time November 2016 comes around, people, working folks will be more stressed, more miserable.
That will be after 3 more years of economic turmoil, and the rich getting richer.
There will be 3 more years of stressed out home budgets with ObamaCare payments and co-pays.

Simply:

Hillary will be viewed as the insider. Part of the problem. Unless she renounces Obama as Hubert failed to do on LBJ, she will be viewed as a continuation of the Obama administration.

Rand Paul, M.D. is the outsider, although nominally a Republican.
He stands alone on his belief's and people will recognize him as the Third Party.

Miserable people will vote for "change", and Hillary is not any change at all.


Moi

I would count the Pauls, Jerry Brown and Elizabeth Warren as outside the RepubloCratic Party.
A Third Party in themselves.

 

Did I just detect a brain fart?

 

He probably wanted to get into her pants.

 

Sorry, RBJ, but you are wrong. The Congress that passed ( forced the Fourteenth Amendment on us ) also segregated the schools in Washington, DC. For 80 years, segregation was upheld by SCOTUS as the Law of The Land. On May 16, 1954, SCOTUS held segregation legal. On May 17, 1954, SCOTUS held segregation to be illegal. What changed?

 

So just because you don't like the 14th Amendment you think it shouldn't count? How exactly does that work. Prior to the ruling both the Feds and the states were willfully allowing peoples constitutional rights to be violated. They had been making the wrong decision up until that point when they finally smartened up. The states had no business denying US citizens their liberty and preventing people from attending PUBLIC schools because of their skin color is violating their liberty.

 

Hilary vs Rand......two really ****ed up choices.

 

This poll assumes that one or the other is the only solution. Therefore I voted neither.

It also assumes the people will pick one over the other. To me it's like voting for Terminator over the guy from No Country For Old Men. Neither really represent me.

 

For nobody, because politics has only one fundamental purpose, organization (of the voters who think, feel and believe differently (because they watch big screen tvs), because people in fear, with anger and in an uncertain situation (the last thirteen years lots of all of that) organize invisible, politics takes advantage of these emotional states of mind in the voter) By politics (by ideology, by politicizing social and economical and ecological subjects, and propaganda, and also psywar) a population will never ever preserve their freedom. A pro people politician does not exist (only in one situation a popular politician will appear and rise fast, when there is maximum chaos in society after an economic or valuta or stock market crash, or end of the system, or another event that will cause maximum emotion (fear or anger) in the crowds (the IMF 'warns' again for recession (is this a serious warning or propaganda, or do they kill two birds with one stone, propaganda and at the same time the economy declines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24515290)