2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
And he's off... Again..
Bahahahaaa..
John McCain is ready for a new fight.
"I have decided to run for re-election," the Arizona senator told NBC News in an exclusive interview revealing his plans to pursue a sixth term on Capitol Hill. "I'm ready. I am more than ready. In some ways, I am eager."
McCain is currently 78 years old but will be 80 by Election Day in 2016. He defended his vitality, saying that he is "just getting started" when it comes to his Senate career.
"I say watch me," he said. "Take a look. Take a look at my 18 hour days. Take a look at the hearings we have. Take a look at my legislative accomplishments."
"I have decided to run for re-election," the Arizona senator told NBC News in an exclusive interview revealing his plans to pursue a sixth term on Capitol Hill. "I'm ready. I am more than ready. In some ways, I am eager."
McCain is currently 78 years old but will be 80 by Election Day in 2016. He defended his vitality, saying that he is "just getting started" when it comes to his Senate career.
"I say watch me," he said. "Take a look. Take a look at my 18 hour days. Take a look at the hearings we have. Take a look at my legislative accomplishments."
Bahahahaaa..
What legislative accomplishments...?
Bells
Staff member
Nearly coming full circle...
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Tuesday that he's running for president in 2016.
"I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government," Paul said in a message on his website.
"I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government," Paul said in a message on his website.
He is no longer portraying himself as a senator. Instead of being Senator Rand, he is now Dr. Rand. I guess he hopes to trick people into thinking he hasn't been a party to what has transpired in Congress for the last several years or that he doesn't come from a political family.
Paul is attempting to portray himself as an outsider, ignoring the fact that he is and has been a sitting senator, ignoring the fact his father was a Republican congressman for 14 years and has been an office holder since 1979. Rand is attempting to portray himself as a "different" kind of Republican. But the Rand different kind of Republican looks a lot like the "old kind" of Republican.
Last edited:
The Swiftboaters have announced they have a million dollars in ads ready which will target Rand in the first 4 primary states. Rand not only intends to run against significant factions of the Republican Party and the Democrats, he must run against his previous positions.
How do millionaires know what regular folks need or want? The millionaires just look out for themselves to make more money and just want to spend money that is not theirs. Some old story just new faces, over and over and over. Very tiring. 
like his father, Rand Paul has solid liberal following, but needs to move more toward the conservative wing of the Republican party to get their nomination. I watched his announcement and he seems to be trying to do that. He was third ranked, but I bet he moves up - I'd give him >50% of being their candidate.
Billy T said:
You know, the more people overstate this, the less I listen to them.
Where is this mass of anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-labor, warmongering liberals?
The only self-described liberal I ever heard backing Ron Paul was actually a Birther.
And pretty much every other liberal I know, when the pot legalization question arose―you'd be amazed at how many fools try to convince us that this is a strictly liberal issue, especially when they're conservatives trying to appeal to the liberal conscience to support bigotry and greed just so we can get high without fear of the police―the reply would always be to ask whether that is worth everything else Americans would have to give up for a Paul presidency―quality of life, general human decency, freedom, &c.―and the answer was always, always no.
I don't understand why people make claims like yours. I can find a female labor Democrat in Iowa who thinks Hillary Clinton shouldn't be president simply on the grounds that the presidency is not a woman's job. I don't know, some reporter found her in '07. I wouldn't call that labor Democrat a "liberal", except if we accept the "moving middle", in which the political center is now well to the right of Reagan Republicans. If we accept a less dynamic, more ideological notion of the center, no, that labor Democrat is a "conservative Democrat". And something between some and many of those still exist, whereas the "liberal Republican" is now virtually extinct.
But, seriously, where is this "solid liberal following", and what policies of the Pauline evangelism do they support? Let me guess: Repealing the Civil Rights Act. No? How about "legitimate rape"? No? How about forcing those rape survivors to bear their rapists' children? No? Abducting and molesting women for a cult? What's that? No?
Seriously, where are they and what are they following?
Its short on specifics, and long on the idea of less government control, more individual liberties. Perhaps You can show some specifics - quotes of him, exposing this image as false?
Here is link giving some of his announcement claims / ideas: http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-ready-join-2016-presidential-campaign-071755769--election.html
The "talking heads" on CNN just after the announcement seemed to agree RP had "solid liberal support" with young republicans, but RP's problem was how to not loss them yet win over the older republican conservatives to get nominated.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to concur with Tiassa, where are those "liberal" Rand supporters? I have seen nor heard anything that would lead me to believe Rand has a "liberal" following unless you mean by liberal anyone who doesn't accept what passes for main stream Republicanism. One of Rand's problem is that he is on the extreme end of what now passes for "conservatism". There are only two differences between Rand and so called "mainstream" Republicans. Rand hasn't pandered to "social conservatives" and Rand has at times been an isolationist and has called for reduced military spending. But even on the issue of isolationism and military spending, Rand has been a little bipolar, favoring it one day and against it another.
And I haven't seen anything or heard anything from CNN that would lead me to conclude they think Rand has a "liberal" following. Rand has been trying to go after a younger demographic by giving speeches at colleges and attempting to spread his brand of conservatism. But that doesn't mean he has a liberal following.
Thanks to the Republican entertainment industry, Republicans have boxed themselves into a corner. Right wing entertainment has pushed Republicans far too the right, to the point where Republicans have become comical.
Last edited:
Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act:
Rand Paul's abduction cult:
Ron Paul on rape:
Ron and Rand Paul just aren't what we would otherwise describe as "good people", except that the definition is so variable these days, since the conservative line is that telling wrongdoers that they are doing wrong is inappropriate because it makes the wrongdoers feel badly. (We've heard that one many times before, and the argument is actually heading to the Supreme Court as Michigan's argument in DeBoer v. Snyder, part of the consolidated marriage equality case slated for oral arguments in three weeks.)
So, remind me again: Why would liberals back Sen. Paul?
Where are the liberal Young Republicans?
To the one, the thing about CNN's talking heads is that they aren't any better than anyone else's, and in many cases are actually worse. But, to the other, is there a typo there? Young Republicans? Liberal?
At what point does defining any Republicans as liberal in 2015 not set off alarms? The last known Congressional "liberal Republican" in Congress might have been Sen. Lincoln Chafee; the former governor of Rhode Island served in the U.S. Senate from 1999-2007, as a Republican. Voters elected Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) to replace him. In 2010, Chafee won the gubernatorial race as an Independent, and left office in 2015, having changed his party affiliation again in 2013; he finished as a Democrat.
But the idea of a liberal Republican? I'll believe it when one reaches the U.S. Senate, or the White House. Most likely, a liberal Republican could not win a House seat in a red district, though it might be possible if a Democrat is absolutely collapsing in scandal. But neither is anyone certain where to find liberal Republicans. The Young Republicans? Maybe. Again, I'll believe it when I see it.
Yeah. Solid liberal support. I just don't buy it.
Of course, Paul is also getting hit from the right flank, with a PAC going after statements he made several years ago mocking concerns over Iran's threat to American security. Now that he's ready to run for president, all the bullshit falls away.
• "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination―even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."
• "There's ten different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of ten deal with public institutions, and I'm absolutely in favor of. One deals with private institutions and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that."
(msnbc↱)
• "There's ten different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of ten deal with public institutions, and I'm absolutely in favor of. One deals with private institutions and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that."
(msnbc↱)
Rand Paul's abduction cult:
The strangest episode of Paul's time at Baylor occurred one afternoon in 1983 (although memories about all of these events are understandably a bit hazy, so the date might be slightly off), when he and a NoZe brother paid a visit to a female student who was one of Paul's teammates on the Baylor swim team. According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, "He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They'd been smoking pot." After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. "They told me their god was 'Aqua Buddha' and that I needed to bow down and worship him," the woman recalls. "They blindfolded me and made me bow down to 'Aqua Buddha' in the creek. I had to say, 'I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.' At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no."
Nearly 30 years later, the woman is still trying to make sense of that afternoon. "They never hurt me, they never did anything wrong, but the whole thing was kind of sadistic. They were messing with my mind. It was some kind of joke." She hadn't actually realized that Paul wound up leaving Baylor early. "I just know I never saw Randy after that—for understandable reasons, I think."
(Zengerle↱)
Nearly 30 years later, the woman is still trying to make sense of that afternoon. "They never hurt me, they never did anything wrong, but the whole thing was kind of sadistic. They were messing with my mind. It was some kind of joke." She hadn't actually realized that Paul wound up leaving Baylor early. "I just know I never saw Randy after that—for understandable reasons, I think."
(Zengerle↱)
Ron Paul on rape:
MORGAN: Here's the dilemma, and it's one I put to Rick Santorum very recently. I was surprised by his answer, although I sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this.
But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?
PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them --
MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?
PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.
But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical -- there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy --
MORGAN: Life doesn't begin at conception?
PAUL: Life does begin at conception.
MORGAN: Then you would be taking a life.
PAUL: Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is -- but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.
(CNN↱)
But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?
PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them --
MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?
PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.
But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical -- there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy --
MORGAN: Life doesn't begin at conception?
PAUL: Life does begin at conception.
MORGAN: Then you would be taking a life.
PAUL: Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is -- but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.
(CNN↱)
Ron and Rand Paul just aren't what we would otherwise describe as "good people", except that the definition is so variable these days, since the conservative line is that telling wrongdoers that they are doing wrong is inappropriate because it makes the wrongdoers feel badly. (We've heard that one many times before, and the argument is actually heading to the Supreme Court as Michigan's argument in DeBoer v. Snyder, part of the consolidated marriage equality case slated for oral arguments in three weeks.)
So, remind me again: Why would liberals back Sen. Paul?
Billy T said:
Where are the liberal Young Republicans?
To the one, the thing about CNN's talking heads is that they aren't any better than anyone else's, and in many cases are actually worse. But, to the other, is there a typo there? Young Republicans? Liberal?
At what point does defining any Republicans as liberal in 2015 not set off alarms? The last known Congressional "liberal Republican" in Congress might have been Sen. Lincoln Chafee; the former governor of Rhode Island served in the U.S. Senate from 1999-2007, as a Republican. Voters elected Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) to replace him. In 2010, Chafee won the gubernatorial race as an Independent, and left office in 2015, having changed his party affiliation again in 2013; he finished as a Democrat.
But the idea of a liberal Republican? I'll believe it when one reaches the U.S. Senate, or the White House. Most likely, a liberal Republican could not win a House seat in a red district, though it might be possible if a Democrat is absolutely collapsing in scandal. But neither is anyone certain where to find liberal Republicans. The Young Republicans? Maybe. Again, I'll believe it when I see it.
That brings us to yesterday, as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on competing budget proposals and the Senate was calling up amendments to the Republican budget. As reported by Time, Sen. Rand Paul stood and introduced an amendment that would add $76.5 billion to the Pentagon budget and offset those outlays with steep cuts to climate change research, the EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Education Department, and the Commerce Department.
So much for the great compromise! The Senate GOP budget already imposes steep cuts on domestic spending to achieve balance. Paul now wants liberals to absorb additional cuts to domestic spending so that conservatives may indulge in a little more "not sustainable" defense spending.
What happened? Well, the easy answer is that Paul is running for president. Literally every other Republican candidate will be promising to engorge the defense budget past the breaking point in order to prove they are the true reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. With the Iran negotiations and the fight against the Islamic State, foreign policy is dominating the 2016 conversation right now, and Rand has probably made the calculation that he just can't continue being an outlier within the party on this issue. At the very least, he wants to have something to throw back at people like Marco Rubio who will run hard on foreign policy and demagogue the hell out of Paul's longstanding insistence that defense spending be cut. Paul's amendment, as Time notes, raises military spending by "nearly the same level" that Rubio proposed in his own amendment.
The true "compromise" that's happening here is on Rand Paul's much-vaunted libertarian principles, which he's shown an eager willingness to shed as he moves closer and closer to announcing his presidential candidacy. He debuted on the national scene as a Republican who would stand on principle to buck the Republican establishment, and since then he's steadily diluted his own positions to bring them into closer alignment with the mainstream of the party. The Rand Paul who once scoffed at the Republican "hawks" and "interventionists" has since joined their ranks in calling for a sustained military campaign to "destroy" the Islamic State. He used to support cutting aid to Israel, but now denies ever having espoused that position.
Reversals like these also undercut what is supposed to be the core of Rand Paul's appeal: that he's a "different" kind of Republican who can hold on to hardcore conservatives while simultaneously poaching traditionally Democratic voters. "Rand is the Republican who has the best chance of keeping and energizing the base while going into their constituencies," a Paul aide said last August. "It's kind of dangerous to have a Republican like Rand." With each flip-flop, Rand is turning himself into the thing he can't afford to be: just another Republican.
(Maloy↱)
So much for the great compromise! The Senate GOP budget already imposes steep cuts on domestic spending to achieve balance. Paul now wants liberals to absorb additional cuts to domestic spending so that conservatives may indulge in a little more "not sustainable" defense spending.
What happened? Well, the easy answer is that Paul is running for president. Literally every other Republican candidate will be promising to engorge the defense budget past the breaking point in order to prove they are the true reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. With the Iran negotiations and the fight against the Islamic State, foreign policy is dominating the 2016 conversation right now, and Rand has probably made the calculation that he just can't continue being an outlier within the party on this issue. At the very least, he wants to have something to throw back at people like Marco Rubio who will run hard on foreign policy and demagogue the hell out of Paul's longstanding insistence that defense spending be cut. Paul's amendment, as Time notes, raises military spending by "nearly the same level" that Rubio proposed in his own amendment.
The true "compromise" that's happening here is on Rand Paul's much-vaunted libertarian principles, which he's shown an eager willingness to shed as he moves closer and closer to announcing his presidential candidacy. He debuted on the national scene as a Republican who would stand on principle to buck the Republican establishment, and since then he's steadily diluted his own positions to bring them into closer alignment with the mainstream of the party. The Rand Paul who once scoffed at the Republican "hawks" and "interventionists" has since joined their ranks in calling for a sustained military campaign to "destroy" the Islamic State. He used to support cutting aid to Israel, but now denies ever having espoused that position.
Reversals like these also undercut what is supposed to be the core of Rand Paul's appeal: that he's a "different" kind of Republican who can hold on to hardcore conservatives while simultaneously poaching traditionally Democratic voters. "Rand is the Republican who has the best chance of keeping and energizing the base while going into their constituencies," a Paul aide said last August. "It's kind of dangerous to have a Republican like Rand." With each flip-flop, Rand is turning himself into the thing he can't afford to be: just another Republican.
(Maloy↱)
Yeah. Solid liberal support. I just don't buy it.
Of course, Paul is also getting hit from the right flank, with a PAC going after statements he made several years ago mocking concerns over Iran's threat to American security. Now that he's ready to run for president, all the bullshit falls away.
Citations for #93 Above
____________________
Notes:
Olbermann, Keith. Countdown with Keith Olbermann. msnbc. 20 May 2010. NBCNews.com. 7 April 2015. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37277754/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
Zengerle, Jason. "Rand Paul's Kooky College Days (Hint: There's a Secret Society Involved)". GQ. 9 August 2010. GQ.com. 7 April 2015. http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/...ys-hint-theres-a-secret-society-involved.html
Morgan, Piers. "Interview with Ron Paul". Piers Morgan Tonight. 3 February 2012. CNN.com. 7 April 2015. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/03/pmt.01.html
Maloy, Simon. "Rand Paul's spectacular crash: How a man of principle turned into a generic politician". Salon. 26 March 2015. Salon.com. 7 April 2015. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/ran...f_principle_turned_into_a_generic_politician/
____________________
Notes:
Olbermann, Keith. Countdown with Keith Olbermann. msnbc. 20 May 2010. NBCNews.com. 7 April 2015. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37277754/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
Zengerle, Jason. "Rand Paul's Kooky College Days (Hint: There's a Secret Society Involved)". GQ. 9 August 2010. GQ.com. 7 April 2015. http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/...ys-hint-theres-a-secret-society-involved.html
Morgan, Piers. "Interview with Ron Paul". Piers Morgan Tonight. 3 February 2012. CNN.com. 7 April 2015. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/03/pmt.01.html
Maloy, Simon. "Rand Paul's spectacular crash: How a man of principle turned into a generic politician". Salon. 26 March 2015. Salon.com. 7 April 2015. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/ran...f_principle_turned_into_a_generic_politician/
It is unfortunate that Rand isn't more like his dad. Ron Paul could've had my vote any time. Too bad.
I've been a yellow-dog democrat most of my life, but there's no delineator between the parties these days: They're all greedy.
Dr Toad said:
Is your life devoid of women?
How about nonwhites?
Nonchristians?
People who aren't wealthy?
Look, if "they're all greedy" is the assessment, the criteria are either too vague or too individually specialized. To the one, I get what you're after, but, to the other, if a capitalistic marketplace so demands, the suppliers will provide.
And the actual Yellow Dog Caucus was made up of greedy politicians; not strong enough to run as Republicans in marketplaces where they don't elect principled Democrats.
Besides, by your measure it would seem voters are just as greedy as the politicians. To the one, no matter how many times they throw the bums out, they manage to elect clones of the people they complain about. To the other, okay, it's fun to me because it came up under the weirdest of circumstances; my first date in, like, nineteen years, and somehow I end up sitting across the table from a doctrinaire propaganda Republican who hates liberals more than he appreciates logic. But, yeah, he tried the bit about appealing to my societal conscience, and then when that didn't work tried to sound smart by looking confident and nodding sagely while wrongly asserting that everybody votes with their pocketbook. It's not an unfamiliar contrast. But at some point we do have to accept that many voters―often the majority―get exactly what they ask for.
I'm gay; I can tell you there is a difference between the parties.
I have a daughter, and the duties of fatherhood will not suddenly end when she reaches voting age; it's a lifetime gig. Yeah, I can tell you there is a difference between the parties.
To the one, I have a friend who participates in the annual one-night count of Seattle homeless. To the other, the smaller suburban wasteland I live in started experiencing the idea of homelessness about two years ago. The contrast is striking, and basic policy assessment will make it clear that there is a difference between the parties on this count, too.
The guy Barack Obama beat in 2008 thinks earning five million dollars a year makes you merely "middle class". Of course, McCain's party also thought Sarah Palin was a good idea. Trust me, sir, there is a difference between the parties.
But if enough people choose to accept the proposition that there is no delineator between the parties these days, the marketplace will provide. And instead of looking at themselves, something voters should be doing every election cycle―and even more so over the last fifteen years―they'll just blame the greedy politicians and we'll start another cycle all over again.
Take what just happened in Alabama, for instance. It's easy enough to imagine that state Sen. Larry Stutts (R-6) could be a Democrat, but I would go so far as to assert that if a Democrat had tried that stunt, it would have failed well before it did. As it was, it required the "liberal media conspiracy" to point out the obvious before Mr. Stutts' Republican colleagues finally balked.
On 18 March, Mr. Stutts was named a "Rising Republican Star" of the week by the Alabama Republican Party↱. Less than two weeks later, he withdrew his drive-by maternity bill↱ after a national shaming. It seems the Yellowhammer State really does have a limit to how low it will stoop―don't get caught. And, yeah, there is a difference. If Dr. Stutts was a Democrat and suggested this bill, his Democratic colleagues would have raised an eyebrow and asked why.
Apparently it never occurred to his Republican colleagues to wonder, and as such they didn't realize that they were about to wreck a powerfully effective law that Stutts wanted repealed for sake of personal pride. "Rose's Law", which put an end to a practice of insufficient care derided as "drive-by maternity", was named for a patient who died under Dr. Stutts' care. And that's why he wants the law repealed.
He also wanted to repeal a law that helped breast cancer patients. Why? Because it had been introduced as a bill by the state senator Stutts would defeat in the 2014 election.
It was all personal, and it never occurred to his Republican colleagues to wonder, because they wanted to help him defeat Obamacare-style laws, such as the 1999 "Rose's Law" that erected a barrier against a specific form of malpractice. The insurance industry refers to it as "E&O", or, "Errors and Omissions". Was Stutts' bill really intended to "make sure our Legislature stays in Montgomery where it belongs and out of the exam room" by exposing patients to wilful malpractice? And yet it apparently never occurred to his Republican colleagues to wonder why he wanted to do this, or why he would be "proud" to do this.
Yeah. There's a difference between the parties.
And, by the way, "libertarianism" is not supposed to be inherently sexist. Nor racist. Nor so generally viciously exclusive.
The absence of any delineator between the parties sounds more like an excuse to me than a rational, evidence-based argument. Then again, how do you think that works?
But it's also true that when it came to Ron Paul, there's just no way I could support a doctor who wants to cite "honest rape" as his justification for refusing care to a female patient. That is, it's one thing to keep the government out of the exam room, but quite another for the doctor to decide what is or isn't an "honest rape".
In practice, it's pretty easy to delineate Democrats and Republicans. Or so says me. Perhaps it's just a matter of what is important to any given voter.
____________________
Notes:
Alabama Republican Party. "Rising Republican Star Dr. Larry Stutts". 18 March 2014. ALGOP.org. 8 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1CfQSb3
WAFF.com Staff. "Sen. Stutts withdraws maternity stay bill". WSFA. 31 March 2015. WSFA.com. 8 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1CozwIm
Wilson, Reid. "Alabama state senator trying to end law enacted after death of one of his patients". The Washington Post. 30 March 2015. WashingtonPost.com. 8 April 2015. http://wapo.st/1alpz7T
Well, radicalism and racism worked out so well for his father. And Rand Paul's previous comments on racial issues clearly shows the apple has not fallen far from the tree. Rand has said he believes people should have the right to discriminate. So you are saying you are a pre 1980 Southern Democrat. Yellow-Dog Democrats became extinct when Republicans took over the South. If you are a Yellow-Dog Democrat you are essentially a Republican.
And as Tiasssa has pointed out, there are significant differences between the two parties. Republicans have by their extremism and penchant for crony capitalism have become unable to effectively govern (e.g. Cruz's multiple attempts to cause a debt default, Baby Bush, Republican opposition to economic stimulus and keeping the financial and automotive sectors alive, etc.). The only POTUS who was able to generate a budget surplus in the last few decades was a Democrat.
Money is a problem with our system of government and that problem does transcend political parties. But Democrats are the ones who want to do something about it. Democrats have steadfastly opposed the Republican Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United which opened the floodgates and billions of dollars have flooded our political system. Thanks to Republicans, a few billionaires select who can and cannot run for office - kinda reminiscent of communism where oligarchs decide who will become office holders.
The US political system desperately needs some balance. Average middle class Joes and Janes are being squeezed out of our political system by big money and those who have it. The US desperately needs a constitutional amendment which removes special interest money from out political system, perhaps something like we see in European elections. Elected office holders should be about serving those who elected them rather than lining their pockets, and elected office shouldn't be a stepping stone to more lucrative jobs as lobbyists. Elections should be about ideas and leadership ability, not money and deception as is now the case. And our elected officials should be beholden to no one but those they are suppose to represent. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. And Republicans have done everything within their power, have left no boundary uncrossed, in order to perpetuate and advance the political and economic power of the uber wealthy at the expense of the American middle class. At least Democrats have paid lip service to electoral reforms and some have actually tried to remove or limit special interest money in our political system.
If people think there is no difference between our political parties, well, they haven't looked. Because there are some very glaring differences between the two political parties.
Last edited:
I thought this was rather entertaining...
http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-touts-eductation-policy-2015-4
http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-touts-eductation-policy-2015-4
I think that sums it up.
Eductation
A Washington Post blogger↱ happened to note that Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) "secretly gave the same speech" when launching their 2016 presidential bids. And it really is a fun post that makes the point. However, as I noted elsewhere↱, there is an alternate explanation for the phenomenon:
Those who would equivocate in order to point out that Democrats do it too should also consider two addtional points: (1) they're following the market trend, and (2) they're still not doing it so badly as Republicans.
You know, like that Senate candidate who couldn't spell the word "Senate". Or the pro-Romney PAC that couldn't spell "Barack Obama" on its official paperwork.
The thing is that campaigns are now somewhat industrialized.
It happens in advertising and website design quite often: Hire a company, and they just plug your product or service into an existing template. In the Seattle market, for instance, we've heard the same radio adverts for both beer and insurance.
And when you look around, there is a reason plenty of websites look pretty much the same; they're using the same CSS templates. Other design firms might be a bit more superficially diverse, but if you look past the colors and fonts, it's pretty much the same cookie-cutter design concept.
Now the phenomenon may well have reached presidential campaigns, which ought not be surprising. The party that constantly asserts capitalism, and denounces its opposition as communist, is simply cutting costs like any good business would. Like General Motors, for instance. And don't make the point that nobody's dead. If one of these clowns makes it to the White House, some peoples is gonna die.
Or it could simply be Rand Paul. The guy doesn't know what the word "plagiarism" means, so why would we expect him to comprehend the concept of proofreading? And we do, in fact, have some evidence of this problem. Mr. Paul apparently did not realize that he was calling for appeasement of terrorism↱, nor that he was calling for the "the repeal of virtually every criminal law"↱. The Kentucky junior's office is struggling to clarify, and it's enough that even the conservative "libertarians" at Power Line consider him "an embarrassment"↱.
Either way, we shouldn't be surprised that Rand Paul's campaign suffers these early gaffes.
____________________
Notes:
Petri, Alexandra. "Rand Paul and Ted Cruz secretly gave the same speech". ComPost. 7 April 2015. WashingtonPost.com. 8 April 2015. http://wapo.st/1Cw7cmZ
bd. "Something About Shakespeare, Something About Kidneys". This Is. 8 April 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 8 April 2015. http://wp.me/pUgG0-1ei
Chait, Jonathan. "Rand Paul Promises to Illegally Trade Weapons for Hostages With Iran". The Daily Intelligencer. 7 April 2015. NYMag.com. 8 April 2015. http://nym.ag/1H3qery
Mirengoff, Paul. "Rand Paul Backpedals, But the Embarrassment Continues". Power Line. 8 April 2015. PowerLineBlog.com. 8 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1GpT7iy
—————. "Rand Paul Remains an Embarrassment". Power Line. 7 April 2015. PowerLineBlog.com. 8 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1FmJPOP
A Washington Post blogger↱ happened to note that Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) "secretly gave the same speech" when launching their 2016 presidential bids. And it really is a fun post that makes the point. However, as I noted elsewhere↱, there is an alternate explanation for the phenomenon:
Those who remember the Cold War should also remember a basic rhetorical dualism: Democrats = liberal = communist = evil and Republicans = conservative = capitalist = good
Just think about it for a moment. It still sort of holds true, even if the Democrats aren't necessarily liberal and the Republicans aren't necessarily ... er ... um ... ah ... not evil. That is to say, Republicans still show capitalistic vice if we accept votes as a form of currency; profit justifies.
Which means there's a reason these early candidates are giving industrialized, polymer campaign speeches. It's an economy of scale for a marketplace in which quality and price are not bases for consumer selection. Rather, they don't care how it's made, or what goes into it, as long as they like the flavor and texture. Give them that, and American consumers will buy damn near anything, regardless of how cheap and worthless it is.
Just think about it for a moment. It still sort of holds true, even if the Democrats aren't necessarily liberal and the Republicans aren't necessarily ... er ... um ... ah ... not evil. That is to say, Republicans still show capitalistic vice if we accept votes as a form of currency; profit justifies.
Which means there's a reason these early candidates are giving industrialized, polymer campaign speeches. It's an economy of scale for a marketplace in which quality and price are not bases for consumer selection. Rather, they don't care how it's made, or what goes into it, as long as they like the flavor and texture. Give them that, and American consumers will buy damn near anything, regardless of how cheap and worthless it is.
Those who would equivocate in order to point out that Democrats do it too should also consider two addtional points: (1) they're following the market trend, and (2) they're still not doing it so badly as Republicans.
You know, like that Senate candidate who couldn't spell the word "Senate". Or the pro-Romney PAC that couldn't spell "Barack Obama" on its official paperwork.
The thing is that campaigns are now somewhat industrialized.
It happens in advertising and website design quite often: Hire a company, and they just plug your product or service into an existing template. In the Seattle market, for instance, we've heard the same radio adverts for both beer and insurance.
And when you look around, there is a reason plenty of websites look pretty much the same; they're using the same CSS templates. Other design firms might be a bit more superficially diverse, but if you look past the colors and fonts, it's pretty much the same cookie-cutter design concept.
Now the phenomenon may well have reached presidential campaigns, which ought not be surprising. The party that constantly asserts capitalism, and denounces its opposition as communist, is simply cutting costs like any good business would. Like General Motors, for instance. And don't make the point that nobody's dead. If one of these clowns makes it to the White House, some peoples is gonna die.
Or it could simply be Rand Paul. The guy doesn't know what the word "plagiarism" means, so why would we expect him to comprehend the concept of proofreading? And we do, in fact, have some evidence of this problem. Mr. Paul apparently did not realize that he was calling for appeasement of terrorism↱, nor that he was calling for the "the repeal of virtually every criminal law"↱. The Kentucky junior's office is struggling to clarify, and it's enough that even the conservative "libertarians" at Power Line consider him "an embarrassment"↱.
Either way, we shouldn't be surprised that Rand Paul's campaign suffers these early gaffes.
____________________
Notes:
Petri, Alexandra. "Rand Paul and Ted Cruz secretly gave the same speech". ComPost. 7 April 2015. WashingtonPost.com. 8 April 2015. http://wapo.st/1Cw7cmZ
bd. "Something About Shakespeare, Something About Kidneys". This Is. 8 April 2015. bdThisIs.WordPress.com. 8 April 2015. http://wp.me/pUgG0-1ei
Chait, Jonathan. "Rand Paul Promises to Illegally Trade Weapons for Hostages With Iran". The Daily Intelligencer. 7 April 2015. NYMag.com. 8 April 2015. http://nym.ag/1H3qery
Mirengoff, Paul. "Rand Paul Backpedals, But the Embarrassment Continues". Power Line. 8 April 2015. PowerLineBlog.com. 8 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1GpT7iy
—————. "Rand Paul Remains an Embarrassment". Power Line. 7 April 2015. PowerLineBlog.com. 8 April 2015. http://bit.ly/1FmJPOP