Looks like Rand is attempting to chip away at the African American Democrat stronghold. Speeches at Howard University, Talks with Jealous of the NAACP.
In the end I think the small minority stick with Democrats or don't vote, but you have to commend him on attempting to open new doors for the Republican Party as others are shutting doors, and re-fighting old battles.
Rand Paul is the future of the GOP for better or worse.
Looks like Rand is attempting to chip away at the African American Democrat stronghold. Speeches at Howard University, Talks with Jealous of the NAACP.
In the end I think the small minority stick with Democrats or don't vote, but you have to commend him on attempting to open new doors for the Republican Party as others are shutting doors, and re-fighting old battles.
Rand Paul is the future of the GOP for better or worse.
Rand Paul is the future of the GOP for better or worse.
Completely disagree.
He's anti-abortion, anti-happy marriage, anti-equal pay for women, for isolationism except when it comes to real life situations (Ukraine), and for the War on Terror.
Rand Paul is the future of the GOP for better or worse.
Completely disagree.
He's anti-abortion, anti-happy marriage, anti-equal pay for women, for isolationism except when it comes to real life situations (Ukraine), and for the War on Terror.
And maybe short why on each Interested in your issues.
This isnt the first thread about this guy. Members who have posted here for a bit know what my and most peoples issues are with him. DJ mentioned a few, I can add that he is a selective phony..I dont like that.
He preaches a political dogma and yet when it suits his interests he slops from the same trough as all the others do.
And maybe short why on each Interested in your issues.
This isnt the first thread about this guy. Members who have posted here for a bit know what my and most peoples issues are with him. DJ mentioned a few, I can add that he is a selective phony..I dont like that.
He preaches a political dogma and yet when it suits his interests he slops from the same trough as all the others do.
He is the closest thing to a Libertarian that will ever sniff the white house.
He is the only hope to transform this "stuck in the mud" party into an actual viable party again.
I do not agree with him on many things, when he backed the "personhood" legislation I thought he had completely jumped the shark, but there is a lot of talk in the grass roots movement to get ready to push a "moratorium" on social issues, and look for a way to compromise on immigration without looking weak.
I think that Rand has to work through many issues, some dealing with his father, and how he was viewed by the African American community. It is smart.
I think that Rand has a long way to go, but there is not one other Republican that I could see myself voting for.
Moratorium on social issues in the GOP = winner all day long.
He is the closest thing to a Libertarian that will ever sniff the white house.
He is the only hope to transform this "stuck in the mud" party into an actual viable party again.
I do not agree with him on many things, when he backed the "personhood" legislation I thought he had completely jumped the shark, but there is a lot of talk in the grass roots movement to get ready to push a "moratorium" on social issues, and look for a way to compromise on immigration without looking weak.
I think that Rand has to work through many issues, some dealing with his father, and how he was viewed by the African American community. It is smart.
I think that Rand has a long way to go, but there is not one other Republican that I could see myself voting for.
Moratorium on social issues in the GOP = winner all day long.
The GOP is FULL of issues with regard to same sex marriage, minorities and even simple things like womens rights.
So how are you going to pull a rabbit out of the GOP hat and magically make these biased, erroneous voters NOT vote based on religion and personal beliefs?
I dont see how you can even remotely think this will happen, nor that he wont be run through the ringer for his stances AND even worse his fathers.
The GOP is FULL of issues with regard to same sex marriage, minorities and even simple things like womens rights.
So how are you going to pull a rabbit out of the GOP hat and magically make these biased, erroneous voters NOT vote based on religion and personal beliefs?
I dont see how you can even remotely think this will happen, nor that he wont be run through the ringer for his stances AND even worse his fathers.
He is the closest thing to a Libertarian that will ever sniff the white house.
He is the only hope to transform this "stuck in the mud" party into an actual viable party again.
I do not agree with him on many things, when he backed the "personhood" legislation I thought he had completely jumped the shark, but there is a lot of talk in the grass roots movement to get ready to push a "moratorium" on social issues, and look for a way to compromise on immigration without looking weak.
I think that Rand has to work through many issues, some dealing with his father, and how he was viewed by the African American community. It is smart.
I think that Rand has a long way to go, but there is not one other Republican that I could see myself voting for.
Moratorium on social issues in the GOP = winner all day long.
He is the closest thing to a Libertarian that will ever sniff the white house.
He is the only hope to transform this "stuck in the mud" party into an actual viable party again.
I do not agree with him on many things, when he backed the "personhood" legislation I thought he had completely jumped the shark, but there is a lot of talk in the grass roots movement to get ready to push a "moratorium" on social issues, and look for a way to compromise on immigration without looking weak.
I think that Rand has to work through many issues, some dealing with his father, and how he was viewed by the African American community. It is smart.
I think that Rand has a long way to go, but there is not one other Republican that I could see myself voting for.
Moratorium on social issues in the GOP = winner all day long.
This isnt the first thread about this guy. Members who have posted here for a bit know what my and most peoples issues are with him. DJ mentioned a few, I can add that he is a selective phony..I dont like that.
He preaches a political dogma and yet when it suits his interests he slops from the same trough as all the others do.
No thanks..
This is the thread I am reading. Can you please be specific instead of generalities and saying selective phony and political dogma. Thanks.
This isnt the first thread about this guy. Members who have posted here for a bit know what my and most peoples issues are with him. DJ mentioned a few, I can add that he is a selective phony..I dont like that.
He preaches a political dogma and yet when it suits his interests he slops from the same trough as all the others do.
No thanks..
This is the thread I am reading. Can you please be specific instead of generalities and saying selective phony and political dogma. Thanks.
These are listed on Wiki as stances. Do you agree/disagree with any of these in particular or others? If so, why? Some of these are just normal Conservative type things. You made it seem as if you had something in particular against his stances as opposed to other Conservatives? Or you just oppose all Conservative stances in general?
He supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation.[5] Unlike his more stridently "non-interventionist" father, Paul concedes a role for American armed forces abroad, including permanent foreign military bases.[134]
Paul describes himself as "100% pro life".[135] Paul opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.[136][137] He has been a sponsor or co-sponsor of several legislative measures to effectively ban all abortions, except possibly in cases in which the mother's life is at risk.[138] He believes legal personhood begins at fertilization.[139][140][141]
He opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.[142][143] He has argued that Congress' political position is "ten years behind the American public".[144]
These are listed on Wiki as stances. Do you agree/disagree with any of these in particular or others? If so, why? Some of these are just normal Conservative type things. You made it seem as if you had something in particular against his stances as opposed to other Conservatives? Or you just oppose all Conservative stances in general?
He supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation.[5] Unlike his more stridently "non-interventionist" father, Paul concedes a role for American armed forces abroad, including permanent foreign military bases.[134]
Paul describes himself as "100% pro life".[135] Paul opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.[136][137] He has been a sponsor or co-sponsor of several legislative measures to effectively ban all abortions, except possibly in cases in which the mother's life is at risk.[138] He believes legal personhood begins at fertilization.[139][140][141]
He opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.[142][143] He has argued that Congress' political position is "ten years behind the American public".[144]
To answer your question because you are trying to corner me (which is a very lame tactic) and refuse to research my already stated views..
I do not agree with blind, blanket generalities..which all Paul's are good at..making general, basic positions and lacking the detail to the position.
I am not pro-life as a voter. I am pro-life in my own life but pro-choice from a voting standpoint. Until the law is changed I support womens rights and the right to choose. I am in support of abortion for the same reasons. I support same sex marriage, I disagree with his states position..I think states get it wrong and with regards to basic rights, I think the states get things wrong too often and he is taking a fall back position (like his dad was so famous for) and it is erroneous.
I disagree with blanket term limits as a solution, and his father was a multi term politician so it is disingenuous hearing him suggest this. I think this fake position points out his weakness..he hides on the tough issues, tries to stand in the middle and avoid conflict in order to gain favor..that is phony to me.
I disagree with many positions and I think he is a phony.
To answer your question because you are trying to corner me (which is a very lame tactic) and refuse to research my already stated views..
I do not agree with blind, blanket generalities..which all Paul's are good at..making general, basic positions and lacking the detail to the position.
I am not pro-life as a voter. I am pro-life in my own life but pro-choice from a voting standpoint. Until the law is changed I support womens rights and the right to choose. I am in support of abortion for the same reasons. I support same sex marriage, I disagree with his states position..I think states get it wrong and with regards to basic rights, I think the states get things wrong too often and he is taking a fall back position (like his dad was so famous for) and it is erroneous.
I disagree with blanket term limits as a solution, and his father was a multi term politician so it is disingenuous hearing him suggest this. I think this fake position points out his weakness..he hides on the tough issues, tries to stand in the middle and avoid conflict in order to gain favor..that is phony to me.
I disagree with many positions and I think he is a phony.
Not trying to corner you---I am not RP expert---went to WIKI to see if they listed anything weird. No I don't wanna research your views when you can tell me. Unless you have a thread dedicated to it? If so was just asking for a few specifics. I do not like it when someone is vague and has a stance and you ask for specifics and they cannot say. I like to discuss things not argue vagueness is all. Thanks
Not trying to corner you---I am not RP expert---went to WIKI to see if they listed anything weird. No I don't wanna research your views when you can tell me. Unless you have a thread dedicated to it? If so was just asking for a few specifics. I do not like it when someone is vague and has a stance and you ask for specifics and they cannot say. I like to discuss things not argue vagueness is all. Thanks
I understand if you disagree with his views on abortion and state's rights. But those are not abnormal views by RP? Aren't those general Republican views?
I understand if you disagree with his views on abortion and state's rights. But those are not abnormal views by RP? Aren't those general Republican views?
Sorry---tied up at work so having to type as I can. For example, not arguing pro-life or pro-death as an issue, I am thinking you were saying RP had a radical stance on something that most Conservatives did not have.
As for generalness I think every politician does that unless it is something that is a platform of theirs or a strongly held tenet. I think politicians, like most people, are scared to say they do not know or do not have a feeling one way or the other on an issue. I see nothing at all wrong with a politician saying no strong feeling on something, until he has some evidence to make his mind up one way or the other.i
Sorry---tied up at work so having to type as I can. For example, not arguing pro-life or pro-death as an issue, I am thinking you were saying RP had a radical stance on something that most Conservatives did not have.
As for generalness I think every politician does that unless it is something that is a platform of theirs or a strongly held tenet. I think politicians, like most people, are scared to say they do not know or do not have a feeling one way or the other on an issue. I see nothing at all wrong with a politician saying no strong feeling on something, until he has some evidence to make his mind up one way or the other.i
But I have the opinion that if you want to discuss something with someone you enter the discussion where you disagree not at the end, or it is wasted conversation.
For example, why are you not for term limits? Not saying I am for them but I am asking because this is the only solid issue I noticed. So is there a reason or two? Because some Republicans are for and some against this? Right?
But I have the opinion that if you want to discuss something with someone you enter the discussion where you disagree not at the end, or it is wasted conversation.
For example, why are you not for term limits? Not saying I am for them but I am asking because this is the only solid issue I noticed. So is there a reason or two? Because some Republicans are for and some against this? Right?
I dont like extremists from either party and for sure ole Rand is an extremist.
I couldnt vote for him for a variety of reasons.
Maybe I misunderstood this. When you said you don't like extremists from either party---I assumed you were saying you are OKAY with non-extremists from either party. Am I wrong?
I dont like extremists from either party and for sure ole Rand is an extremist.
I couldnt vote for him for a variety of reasons.
Maybe I misunderstood this. When you said you don't like extremists from either party---I assumed you were saying you are OKAY with non-extremists from either party. Am I wrong?
speeding up the turnstiles does not rid the system of the problem. Its a lazy, generalist ploy. Until private money is out it wont matter term limits or not. So to me it is a wasted issue..and would not help anything.
I dislike elitists who try to come off as something they are not. The Paul family likes to stand above looking down and pointing fingers, all the while they are no better than the ones they blast and belittle. I dont like people who grandstand and come off as disingenuous and phony.
My views really are more central, I am for sure not for any one party..but I vote based on what I feel serves the interests of more people, not my religious beliefs or personal opinions. I am also not a slave to any PAC like Rand and Ron are so I do not owe anyone anything..
speeding up the turnstiles does not rid the system of the problem. Its a lazy, generalist ploy. Until private money is out it wont matter term limits or not. So to me it is a wasted issue..and would not help anything.
I dislike elitists who try to come off as something they are not. The Paul family likes to stand above looking down and pointing fingers, all the while they are no better than the ones they blast and belittle. I dont like people who grandstand and come off as disingenuous and phony.
My views really are more central, I am for sure not for any one party..but I vote based on what I feel serves the interests of more people, not my religious beliefs or personal opinions. I am also not a slave to any PAC like Rand and Ron are so I do not owe anyone anything..
speeding up the turnstiles does not rid the system of the problem. Its a lazy, generalist ploy. Until private money is out it wont matter term limits or not. So to me it is a wasted issue..and would not help anything.
I dislike elitists who try to come off as something they are not. The Paul family likes to stand above looking down and pointing fingers, all the while they are no better than the ones they blast and belittle. I dont like people who grandstand and come off as disingenuous and phony.
My views really are more central, I am for sure not for any one party..but I vote based on what I feel serves the interests of more people, not my religious beliefs or personal opinions. I am also not a slave to any PAC like Rand and Ron are so I do not owe anyone anything..
So you won't be voting for Hillary right?
She is a slave to more than PACs, she also owes people for her Husband's success and wealth.
Have you heard about the Chinese campaign contributions to Clinton? He probably should be in jail for that stuff, but the Republicans didn't want to draw attention.
speeding up the turnstiles does not rid the system of the problem. Its a lazy, generalist ploy. Until private money is out it wont matter term limits or not. So to me it is a wasted issue..and would not help anything.
I dislike elitists who try to come off as something they are not. The Paul family likes to stand above looking down and pointing fingers, all the while they are no better than the ones they blast and belittle. I dont like people who grandstand and come off as disingenuous and phony.
My views really are more central, I am for sure not for any one party..but I vote based on what I feel serves the interests of more people, not my religious beliefs or personal opinions. I am also not a slave to any PAC like Rand and Ron are so I do not owe anyone anything..
So you won't be voting for Hillary right?
She is a slave to more than PACs, she also owes people for her Husband's success and wealth.
Have you heard about the Chinese campaign contributions to Clinton? He probably should be in jail for that stuff, but the Republicans didn't want to draw attention.
I think I have stated many times that I dislike owned politicians on either side..but what is worse to me is a politician who acts as if they are above the rest, yet they are no different. It reeks of phoniness and actually bugs me more than someone who takes money and says nothing.
I think I have stated many times that I dislike owned politicians on either side..but what is worse to me is a politician who acts as if they are above the rest, yet they are no different. It reeks of phoniness and actually bugs me more than someone who takes money and says nothing.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.