Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

You have my support Rand!

 

I'd vote for him, but he won't win the nomination. Republicans must have someone that hates liberty and small government. That's their way.

 

I don't believe rank and file Republicans will be as turned off by Rand, as they clearly were by Ron. On the issues, he's far more mainstream Republican than his father, but you can clearly see his Libertarian influences shining through.

 

As long as he didn't become an inconsistent sell-out, I would continue to support him.

 

Him endorsing Romney and acting more establishment-ish concerns me......

 

Which is why I would never ever vote for him.

 

I still like him better than most of the Republican party, but I can't blame you for not wanting to ever vote for him. He isn't his dad, that's for sure.

 

My problem with Rand Paul is that he's still pandering to the social-conservatives and tea party so that sometimes he really doesn't make a lot of sense or he doesn't go far enough in his thought process. He is far better than most Republicans though.

I can point to some issues from an article on him.

Except for racists both liberals and conservatives agree that children raised in the United State by "illegal" immigrants should be allowed a "fast path" to citizenship and in the above statement Rand Paul does address even more than these individuals. What he hasn't addressed is that without a major change in our immigration laws that would allow those that want to come here for work and the American Dream that the problem will just repeat itself down the road. Those that cross our border illegally two work and be a part of the United States often pay many thousands of dollars just to get here and generally risk their lives to do that. We need a legal pathway for them to come and cannot exclude them based upon a quota system like we currently have.

Okay, for a young person that might make sense but what about an adult? Why should there be any prohibition for an adult to possibly grow a little pot in the back yard and enjoy it when they get home from work? It's far better than drinking alcohol and there is no logical reason why the US government should impose authortarian social engineering upon the adult population of America. The Federal government really needs to end the War on Drugs. It has not reduced illegal drug usage and has created the most violent crime in America today.

We should also note that by ending the War on Drugs and allowing those that want to work and be productive Americans to immigrate to the United States the "border patrol" issue that Rand Paul is concerned with basically goes away. What would they be looking for if there's no more drug smuggling or illegal border crossings by immigrants? Terrorists? Perhaps but we don't have any cases of terrorists trying to illegally cross the border so far. It's a possibility that should be a concern and addressed but 99% of all illegal border crossings would disappear.

Yes, the DOD budget can be significantly reduced without compromising US national security. There is no logical reason why the US military can't be the most technologically advanced and finest military in the world by spending three-times more than any other nation. Currently we spend four-times and much but we'd still be the best spending only three-times as much. That isn't a "compromise" but instead it's just thinking logically.

As for entitlements and welfare there are serious issues in proposing spending cuts. To eliminate these expendatures we need to eliminate the need first. We can just cut those off that need this assistance to put food on the table or a roof over their head. Rand Paul is not addressing how to eliminate the need and simply "throwing granny under the train" isn't a solution.

Finally, although I'm a little out of order related to the article:

That is true, President Obama's re-election isn't a mandate for raising taxes or more accurately increasing federal revenues. The deficits and the national debt creates that mandate! If Rand Paul doesn't see that then he doesn't have a clue about being the President. I have addressed this issue elsewhere and won't address it here but the Congress can generate about a trillion dollars in additional revenue while reducing the income tax rates if it will close one tax loophole that only benefits the wealthy and allows them to pay a fraction of the income tax rates that working Americans pay.

The key for Rand Paul is that the deficits and the national debt require increased tax revenues, period. If that requires higher rates then it requires higher rates. If it requires closing a loophole for the wealthy that results in unfair taxation then the loophole should be closed. It wasn't Obama's re-election but the fact that 40% of spending is being paid for with borrowing. That's where the mandate comes from.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-p...6-pot-immigration-defense-cuts-115939587.html

 

Living in the presence of so many illegal aliens from mexico and central america and their gangbanger children has hardened my attitude toward illegal immigration. I encounter these folks every day. Thus, my opinion is informed by my experience.

I don't care about Rand Paul or any Republican gaining power if it means any accommodation. In fact, since the US seems so in love with illegal immigrants and gangbangers I don't have much use for the US any more.

 

Rand is either gonna wind up being a sleeper or a massive turncoat to the liberty movement. Whether or not the establishment gets behind him in 2016 will be the answer to that question.

 

The rank and file Republicans are useless, wastes of time. They will talk tax cuts while Rome burns instead of putting out the raging fires.

Ahem.

 

Romney had more in common with Rand (and Ron) than with Obama.

Like what?

 

I don't think it's pandering, I think that's just who he is.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Myself for example, I don't hate Mexicans (or smaller illegal immigrant groups), but I absolutely oppose amnesty, and strongly wish that we could do away with birthright citizenship.

He supports state rights on this issue, which is even better than the current administration. I don't think it's realistic for those of us who support the legalization of marijuana, to expect it to happen on a federal level overnight. It would appear that a Rand Paul admin. would by and large respect state laws concerning this issue.

So you're under the impression that if we grant amnesty/a fast track to citizenship/work permits, and end the war on drugs, people will simply stop crossing the border?

 

Not much, if anything, at all.....1% is higher than .5%, but still nowhere close to a passing grade. Neither is like Ron, or Rand so far, for that matter.

Supporting Mitt is a big one. That concerned me greatly. His father didn't do that. Although, I suppose he did it for a future in the party. But if he's willing to endorse someone for political purposes, how does that make him any different than the standard politician? How do we know he won't cave in the future?

I just don't get the same honest vibe from him that I got from Ron. But I want to be wrong. I hope I am.

 

Amnesty for illegal aliens means more illegal aliens will come. If that's Rand Paul's position there is no point in supporting him.

 

" Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid"

I hope so, dems would have a easy win

 

Hmm, I dunno. The potential Democratic candidates aren't too intimidating, save for Hillary... though I could of swore she said she was done at the end of this year.

 

He's opposed to amnesty.

 

His endorsement of Romney was conditional. If libertarians want to make political progress in this country, they have to be willing to work with people.

 

Is he willing to accommodate adult illegal aliens who knowingly and willingly violated the US border? If the answer is in the affirmative then he is dead to me.

 

I don't know that he supports "amnesty" but you would have to be dense to think that the millions of illegals already here are not here to stay. We need to secure the border and then worry about the rest. If they are otherwise law-abiding, then they are not worth deporting, simple as that. Rand supports securing the border, and that is the most important thing.

 

Alright then. Go support some xenophobe who promises to deport millions of people from the country.

 

I know the illegals aren't going away. It's one of the reasons I stopped considering myself American.

 

How can we make political progress with one who's so far away from our beliefs like Romney? I don't need to list all the crap that he supports and agrees with Obama with, surely you know already.

 

My anathema goes far beyond that. I've stopped having any use for the US. The US is now only something to be used for personal gain just like the illegals use it.