BREAKING- Rand Paul Endorses Mitt Romney

That he is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) bag just like every other Obama/Romney supporter.

 

Paul supporter remind me of neocons in the run up to the Iraq War. It's that same attitude of: Agree with us always or you're a traitor.

 

You might as well say it now because he WILL endorse Romney. As soon as he's milked every cent possible out of the naive fools.

 

Rand Paul is a paper tiger. Unlike his dad he doesn't have the quick wit to turn a debate around by challenging the premiss of the question. Maddow Jap- slapped him around the TV screen. Libertarianism will die a slow deserved death after Ron Paul opts out of politics.

 

Will Romney be the next president that will reach absolute popularity?
Or will he worsen the situation again even more and will that end his presidency and will in the end Ron Paul be the one that will reach that level of popularity they system is waiting for?
It's all about reaching absolute power. In Europe the same political process is going on, reaching levels of almost fifty percent, in the case of Russia over fifty percent of power (you already start to see Russia changing into the wrong direction, behaving more like the former Sowiet Union or NS Germany)
You wonder why the UN or human rights groups or the EU or any politician or media are not warning for a repeat of (German) history. The answer to that can be that they wait to warn because first need absolute levels of power in as many western nations of possible, and it will be them that take that power in the end (to rule over Europe, the USA and the world, history, it is happening again)

 

Well now I think much less of Ron Paul.

 

The only thing this establishes is that anyone who believed Rand Paul was a libertarian in any sense of the word was deceived. Rand Paul is a social-conservative just like virtually every politican in the Republican Party today. Many like to believe his father is a libertarian but that is also false. They are social-conservatives that want to impose authoritarian social engineering based upon religious beliefs upon the American People even though that violates the First Amendment's protections of the religious Rights of the People and the Fourteenth Amendment's protections against invidious discrimination that denies equal protection under the law for all Americans.

 

So,,,,,,,,"Who you gonna call?" Are you not going to vote since there is ne one worth voting for? IF b.o. and Romney are the "same" then isn't it logical to try a new team since the present one is an absolute failure. Now, "CHANGE" from the "CHANGE" that obama brought in [none positive] is needed and it would be mindlessly stupid to expect that from the entrenched failures. So that leaves only Romney. The Republican 'failures' prior to b.o.'s failures look INNOCENT in comparison. Their spending excesses were much less severe. Their debt increase was WELL less than half that shown by the incompetent idiots now in power. So even if you mistakenly think, "they're all the same," FACTS say they are NOT the same. If you say neither can be rated GOOD, I won't argue, they're ALL politicians after all. But one being less bad than the other is not, "they're all the same."

And the FACT IS, Romney or b.o., WILL be the next president.

 

I can't find any real identifying differences between Obama and Romney. Both advocate about $900 billion in deficit spending for next year. Neither makes any proposals to balance the budget and begin paying down the national debt within the next four years (i.e. the term of office). Both advocate the social engineering of society under the law which violates our inalienable Rights. The policies and agenda of both violate the ideals upon which America was founded.

Yes, the overwhelming probability is that either Romney or Obama will be elected in November in which case, based upon history, Obama would be preferable as second-term presidents typically cause less damage to America than first term presidents. Both will damage America but Obama would probably cause less damage.

But I will vote based upon my political ideals for the candidate that most closely matches them regardless of the very low probablility of him being elected. My vote goes to Gary Johnson who's a new convert to the Libertarian Party. He doesn't have great understanding of what being a libertarian means yet but he's on the right course. Not perfect by any means but at least he would continue the destruction of the American ideals that both Romney and Obama are dedicated to.

 

I would disagree that Obama hasn't done a few positive things for America although he's been frustrated in some of his attempts by Congress.

He completely rejected the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that the Bush adminstration created. These techniques, all of them, were forms of torture based upon the Title 18 definition of torture. People actually murdered from the use of these techniques although none were murdered by waterboarding. Individuals did die from hypothermia and physical abuse (i.e. beatings) that were included in these techniques. People were crippled for life from the abusive restraint techniques that were employed.

Obama also attempted to prosecute suspected terrorists in a criminal court where they could receive a fair and impartial trial. They are not charged with crimes committed on a battlefield which would fall to a military tribunal to address. They are charged with the violations of statutory criminal laws against terrorism. Congress blocked "due process of the law" under the US Constitution but Obama tried to address the issue properly.

Obama, once believing that civil unions could provide for equal protection under the law learned from the DOMA case that it was impossible and has since come out in favor of same-gender marriage. He learned and has acknowledged that the denial of same-sex [gender] marriage violates the equal protection clause and has embraced compliance with the US Constitution.

Ironically Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts in 2004 when the Supreme Court in Massachusetts reached the conclusion that denial of same-sex [gender] marriage violated the equal protection clause. Romney knows this and actually issued to executive order allowing same-sex [gender] marriage in Massachusetts but today he openly supports a violation of the 14th Amendment in advocating the prohibition of same-sex [gender] marriage.

Anyway, there are enough "negatives" related to both Romney and Obama to oppose them both but the statement that Obama hasn't done anything positive for American is blatantly false. It isn't a question of what either candidate would do that might be "right" but instead what they would do that would be "wrong" and the politics of both are highly negative to America overall.

 

So your in love with new and inexperienced? Sadly that's what got us the wholly incompetent b.o. With inexperience came incompetence in b.o.'s case.

Johnson, another nobody that never WAS. aka, wasted vote. Johnson won't 'fog a mirror' in the elections.

We don't have 3 or more choices. We have the choice of reelecting a total failure or trying something else. Those are the only 2 intelligent choices. I don't always agree with you, but USUALLY you make intelligent posts. Choosing to vote for a nothing, is not one of them. This election is not about philosophy, its about rescuing the nation. b.o. has PROVED he is incompetent to do that. And if you're against first termers, WHY vote for Johnson? When was he president, I missed those 4 years.

 

Mitt Romney offers no prospects of "rescuing the nation" and that has been previously addressed. The current problem with the US ecomony, for example, is the European economy. The future problems with the US economy are the overwhelming national debt of the nations which will equal the entire GDP of the nation by the end of the year. Mitt Romney has come out supporting the same deficit spending as Obama (about $900 billion) and steadfastly refuses to raise taxes which is one-half of the requirement for a balanced budget in 2012. Obviously the other half is expendature reductions but both are absolutely necessary because a balance budget cannot be reached without both.

As I noted, Obama has taken some positive steps as president such as endorsing same-sex [gender] marriage as the laws against it violate the very ideal of "inalienable Rights" upon which America was founded as well as the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom and the Fourteenth Amendments requirement for equal protection under the law. Hopefully the US Supreme Court will at least strike down the individual mandate in "Obamacare" which was the worst act of Obama's first term and he won't be able to do that again.

As I noted second term presidents don't do as much damage to our nation than first term presidents. Obama, in his second term, will not do nearly as much damage to America as Mitt Romney would do in a first term. While I won't vote for Obama for those Americans that want to "mitigate the damage cause by presidents to America" then Obama is certianly a better choice that Romney.

Personally I still vote for a person with virtually no chance of winning because his election would actually benefit America and all Americans.

 

IF you were right about o & R, and I don't think you are, but when you say Romney supports the same $900 billion deficit spending as b.o. I submit that Romney might mean $900 billion in deficit spending and that's certainly NOT GOOD. Just as Bush's $161 billion deficit wasn't "GOOD." But when b,o. promotes $900 billion in deficit spending, he means $1.6 TRILLION in reality.
b.o. is the guy that said that he would cut the deficit in half and he's NEVER approached bringing it down to an even $1 Trillion. And b.o. MADE that claim when the deficit was UNDER $500 billion. [$458.6 billion]

HOW can an intelligent person believe that a complete failure in his first term will be a less terrible failure in his second term? Failed means FIRED in the real world.

 

I suggest a review of history as every second term president has always been more moderate that during their first term. Even FDR that was elected four times was far more moderate in his second term of office. The Emergency Banking (1933) and and Social Security (1935) all came from FDR's first term in office and they can be cited as the two most damaging acts financially in US history. Clinton was better in his second term as was Reagan and even the "great satan" George W Bush that violated more Constitutional Amendments than any other president I'm aware of was better in his second term of office.

As bad as a president is they always seem to be less damaging to America in their second term and they are always better in their second term than the next president that follows them are in their first term. Remember Clinton? In his first term he tried to force "Clintoncare" on America but in his second term he virtually balanced the budget. Bush followed Clinton and in his first term he got the US involved in two wars that lasted his entire adminstration plus he violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution as well as sending the US government into increasing deficit spending instead of surpluses that he'd inherited. The guy was a wack-o nutcase during his first term but by his second term he managed to turn it down to just wack-o and dropped the nutcase.

 

Well said...

 

Well I guess that is is good that b.o. is going to get fired, because I believe he would be the devastating exception to your 'second term moderate rule.'

Is there a correlating change in Congress that has effected the second term moderate rule?

 

Well, that is a consideration but it doesn't address the fact that a first term president is always worse than the president they replace.

Romney threatens the rights and liberties of Americans more than any other presidential candidate I can recall. We're talking about a candidate that openly expresses political policies and agendas that violate the First Amendment's protections of Freedom of Religion, the Tenth Amendment's protections of States Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendments protections agianst invidious discrimination under the law.

Former President Bush violated more Constitutional Amendments than any other president I'm aware of but he didn't come out openly and advocate policies that would violate them during his campaign.

A very good question and I am aware of some cases where this has occurred. A "government divided" has always been best for the American People because much of what Congress does is really awful for the People. If the Congress is controlled by the same party as the President it's an open invitation to screw America. "Obamacare" is the most recent example of that. Something like 75% of Americans oppose the individual mandate in Obamacare even though fewer than 16% of Americans would be affected by it.

 

And what are your explanations and problems with FY 2004 thru FY 2007. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and Federal revenue increased each year while deficits went from $412 billion** to $318 billion, to $248 billion, to $161 billion, before Democrats took Congressional control and deficits since have averaged over $1.3 TRILLION? Neither $412 billion, nor $161 billion is good. But that 4 year total [$1.139 trillion] is LESS than ANY year under b.o. Those ARE records of performance, those ARE facts. And that was under Bush! I'm no big Romney fan, but I'd consider him massively MORE qualified than Bush, while not considering that b.o. is even in the running, qualifications wise. Even against Bush.

** Highest Republican Congress deficit in history. Compare that to any THIRD of a year under b.o.

 

My first thought was, what took him so long?

It will be interesting to see to what extent the Tea Party cadre are given speaking positions at the GOP convention. Now that Romney is in the general election, I'm not sure he'd what the RW nuts turning off independent voters. My guess is they'll get a few spots in the early parts of the convention, but you won't see them in the prime time slots.

 

You forgot to mention how Clinton had a $236 billion surplus the year before Bush took office and passed his tax cuts, sending revenues tanking and deficits soaring.

How do you figure Romney is going to do anything to improve the situation by cutting tax revenues more and spending more on the military, basically Bush 2.0?

 

But now we need a Republican majority in all branches of the government not only to undo all of what the Democrats did (there is no other way to do that) but also to insure we get Supreme court judges that respect the constitution.

 

While I don't like Ron Paul's politics for the most part I myself, and you should to, recognize the fact that Rand Paul as VP would cinch the election for Romney.

 

obama's glib, but obvious, lies will cinch the victory for Romney too.

 

2004-2007 created $1.3 trillion in deficit spending during a time period of expanding economic times when the US government should have been able to pay down the national debt by at least $1 trillion during the same time period. That's over a $2 trillion reversal of what should have been happening and what actually happened. Keynesian economic philosophy, which I personally oppose but which Republicans and Democrats support, establishes that during prosperous economic times the government should eliminate debt and establish a reserve fund to be used for economic downturns. The Bush adminstration's and the Republican controlled Congress did not work to pay off the national debt and create a reserve fund that could have been used in late 2007-8 when the US economy took a downturn.

Former President Clinton (not my favorite president by any means) left the US government with a projected positive revenue and a Republican president turned that completely around and during times of prosperity reversed this to create over a four trillion dollars of debt in 8 years as opposed to paying down the national debt. He left the US economy in chaos without the ability of government to address it based upon the Keynesian economic philosophies they endorse.

Do I oppose President Obama's deficit spending policies? Absolutely but at least they are deficits based upon economic constriction (i.e. a recession) and not based upon economic expansion. There was absolutely no justification for the deficits under Bush based upon any economic model. As I've repeatedly noted the problems are the Republicans and Democrats as both are contributing to the eventual collapse of the US economy through deficit spending. They can't even apply the economic philosophy that they claim to be following.

Let us also remember one fact from the 2008 election. When both McCain and Obama proposed future budgets the CBO review reflected greater projected budget deficits under McCain's proposal that under Obama's proposal. Even Obama's current proposals of tax increases and expendature reductions results in lower future deficits than the Romney/Ryan proposal which included no increases in tax rates that are necessary and BOTH increase the national debt which we cannot afford from any economic perspective.

For 2013 both Obama's budget and the Romney/Ryan's budget generate about $900 billion in additional debt. This is unaffordable and the logical solution is at least $450 billion in reduced expendatures as well as $450 billion in tax increases. Anyone proposing $900 billion in deficits for 2013 should be rejected by the American voters.

 

All Supreme Court justices support the US Constitution, period. There are two different philosophies for interpretation but those differences are relatively minor in most cases. Anyone that has read both the majority and minority opinions on split decisions knows that both provide valid "Constitutional" arguments. If there is any problem at all it's because decisions are based upon a simple majority.

If we wanted the maximum protection from government infringements upon the Rights of the People we would require that all decisions supporting a law or action of government require a unanimous decision by the court and any decision that any law or action isn't unanimously supported would be struck down the law or action as being unconstitutional.

Of course both Republicans and Democrats would oppose that because both endorse laws and actions of government that are of dubious Constitutionality which is the result of split decisions by the US Supreme Court.

Imagine this. "Obamacare" would be struck down (pro-Social Conservative/anti- Social Liberal) as well as the prohibitions of same-sex [gender] marriage (pro- Social Liberal/anti- Social Conservative) because both are eventually going to be split decisions. The social conservatives and social liberals that seek to impose authoritarian government upon the American People both lose but the American People win in both cases.