Top Obama Aide: Rand Paul Is ‘Most Intriguing’ Republican

[Chef Ramsay]

That said, if people were following my Rand Paul thread you'd note that this topic had already been covered and posted like a month or so ago. But, the more the merrier.

[beetcoin]

If you vote Libertarian then you're throwing away your vote. In other words, if you vote Libertarian then you don't care about the election results.

Voting isn't about choosing the perfect candidate. Its about doing everything you can to help your country. In this country the GOP is the only decent option.

You are absolutely right. I don't specifically vote GOP or Democrat, but the GOP candidates are almost always the closest to my ideology. If they would just get away from the social control stuff I would feel better about pressing the button for them each cycle.

Don't either of you realise how insulting that is to people who would want genuine change in a government? Personally I think voting for a bunch of closet racists, blatant homophobes and warmongering morons is just as damaging to the country, but sure, be short sighted.

while i am ideologically closer to you than someone who is more of a republican, a response like that would only be incendiary. i think the GOP is quite a kooky one, and my dislike for them and their base is much, much stronger than my affection towards democrats.

but back to the topic: i was really looking forward to betting and winning on hilary 2016.. but with rand in the equation, i'm not so sure she is a clear favorite.

[Mobius]

He certainly has a way with words. He's also a bit of a douche though and seems willing to compromise good policy formulation for the sake of political posturing. But I guess that is everyone on the hill.

I'm not so sure I would agree with this, but I can't see how he could possibly win a republican primary, so I doubt it matters.

I agree. I don't think he would appeal enough to most of the conservative base to be able to win the primaries.

[zolace]

That said, if people were following my Rand Paul thread you'd note that this topic had already been covered and posted like a month or so ago. But, the more the merrier.

i am sorry, i didn't know that i posted the same topic as you.

[zolace]

He certainly has a way with words. He's also a bit of a douche though and seems willing to compromise good policy formulation for the sake of political posturing. But I guess that is everyone on the hill.

I'm not so sure I would agree with this, but I can't see how he could possibly win a republican primary, so I doubt it matters.

I focus mostly on foreign affairs, so his politicking in that area has been my main exposure to him and there he has waged a rather (in my opinion) dishonest campaign which seems largely aimed at winning him political points by bashing Hillary Clinton as soundly as he can, facts be damned. I'm not really a fan of using serious issues for such means. Then again, I would never survive on the hill.

All politicians bash their competition solely to score political points. The biggest offender in recent years is Obama. While I'm sure you wouldn't like most of his foreign policies, I suspect I would. So I consider his a fairly honest campaign. More so than most, anyway.

[noviapriani]

He certainly has a way with words. He's also a bit of a douche though and seems willing to compromise good policy formulation for the sake of political posturing. But I guess that is everyone on the hill.

I'm not so sure I would agree with this, but I can't see how he could possibly win a republican primary, so I doubt it matters.

I focus mostly on foreign affairs, so his politicking in that area has been my main exposure to him and there he has waged a rather (in my opinion) dishonest campaign which seems largely aimed at winning him political points by bashing Hillary Clinton as soundly as he can, facts be damned. I'm not really a fan of using serious issues for such means. Then again, I would never survive on the hill.

All politicians bash their competition solely to score political points. The biggest offender in recent years is Obama. While I'm sure you wouldn't like most of his foreign policies, I suspect I would. So I consider his a fairly honest campaign. More so than most, anyway.

Like I said, I wouldn't survive, but the fact that he needs to rely so heavily on them in the area of foreign affairs indicates weakness in that area for him. He doesn't produce a lot of substance on his own, and even in his criticisms a lot of his comments are blatantly dishonest. I can't respect that.

[zolace]

He certainly has a way with words. He's also a bit of a douche though and seems willing to compromise good policy formulation for the sake of political posturing. But I guess that is everyone on the hill.

I'm not so sure I would agree with this, but I can't see how he could possibly win a republican primary, so I doubt it matters.

I focus mostly on foreign affairs, so his politicking in that area has been my main exposure to him and there he has waged a rather (in my opinion) dishonest campaign which seems largely aimed at winning him political points by bashing Hillary Clinton as soundly as he can, facts be damned. I'm not really a fan of using serious issues for such means. Then again, I would never survive on the hill.

All politicians bash their competition solely to score political points. The biggest offender in recent years is Obama. While I'm sure you wouldn't like most of his foreign policies, I suspect I would. So I consider his a fairly honest campaign. More so than most, anyway.

Like I said, I wouldn't survive, but the fact that he needs to rely so heavily on them in the area of foreign affairs indicates weakness in that area for him. He doesn't produce a lot of substance on his own, and even in his criticisms a lot of his comments are blatantly dishonest. I can't respect that.

From my perspective he's far less of a war hawk than she is. 99% of her stuff is fluff, and I can't respect that. On the other hand, I think she should have gotten the presidency in 2008, so perhaps she can step up her game. Of course, I suppose he can just as easily. As far as why it's in his interest to bash her warmongering...well she has name recognition. So it's the correct move, much like it was for Obama.

[noviapriani]

He certainly has a way with words. He's also a bit of a douche though and seems willing to compromise good policy formulation for the sake of political posturing. But I guess that is everyone on the hill.

I'm not so sure I would agree with this, but I can't see how he could possibly win a republican primary, so I doubt it matters.

I focus mostly on foreign affairs, so his politicking in that area has been my main exposure to him and there he has waged a rather (in my opinion) dishonest campaign which seems largely aimed at winning him political points by bashing Hillary Clinton as soundly as he can, facts be damned. I'm not really a fan of using serious issues for such means. Then again, I would never survive on the hill.

All politicians bash their competition solely to score political points. The biggest offender in recent years is Obama. While I'm sure you wouldn't like most of his foreign policies, I suspect I would. So I consider his a fairly honest campaign. More so than most, anyway.

Like I said, I wouldn't survive, but the fact that he needs to rely so heavily on them in the area of foreign affairs indicates weakness in that area for him. He doesn't produce a lot of substance on his own, and even in his criticisms a lot of his comments are blatantly dishonest. I can't respect that.

From my perspective he's far less of a war hawk than she is. 99% of her stuff is fluff, and I can't respect that. On the other hand, I think she should have gotten the presidency in 2008, so perhaps she can step up her game. Of course, I suppose he can just as easily. As far as why it's in his interest to bash her warmongering...well she has name recognition. So it's the correct move, much like it was for Obama.

Whether or not either of them is a warhawk isn't what bothers me. I'm not talking about either of their respective stances, I am talking about the honesty of them and the tactics of their dialogue. In that, he comes across like a bit of a douche and utilizes blatantly inaccurate statements for the sake of attack politics.

[umair127]

Rand Paul is not libertarian enough for me, but given the choice between him and any of the other candidates from the Democrat or Republican party, I would vote for Paul. I want Sarah Palin and Lt. Col. Allen West to run for President and Vice President in 2016.

[noviapriani]

99% of her stuff is fluff, and I can't respect that.

I'd rather have fluff (which is part of bureaucrats speaking with one voice on issues) than blatant dishonesty for the sake of personal political gain, and a willingness to engage in poor policy formulation for the sake of political gain. Fluff is annoying, but it isn't as dangerous.

[zolace]

He certainly has a way with words. He's also a bit of a douche though and seems willing to compromise good policy formulation for the sake of political posturing. But I guess that is everyone on the hill.

I'm not so sure I would agree with this, but I can't see how he could possibly win a republican primary, so I doubt it matters.

I focus mostly on foreign affairs, so his politicking in that area has been my main exposure to him and there he has waged a rather (in my opinion) dishonest campaign which seems largely aimed at winning him political points by bashing Hillary Clinton as soundly as he can, facts be damned. I'm not really a fan of using serious issues for such means. Then again, I would never survive on the hill.

All politicians bash their competition solely to score political points. The biggest offender in recent years is Obama. While I'm sure you wouldn't like most of his foreign policies, I suspect I would. So I consider his a fairly honest campaign. More so than most, anyway.

Like I said, I wouldn't survive, but the fact that he needs to rely so heavily on them in the area of foreign affairs indicates weakness in that area for him. He doesn't produce a lot of substance on his own, and even in his criticisms a lot of his comments are blatantly dishonest. I can't respect that.

From my perspective he's far less of a war hawk than she is. 99% of her stuff is fluff, and I can't respect that. On the other hand, I think she should have gotten the presidency in 2008, so perhaps she can step up her game. Of course, I suppose he can just as easily. As far as why it's in his interest to bash her warmongering...well she has name recognition. So it's the correct move, much like it was for Obama.

Whether or not either of them is a warhawk isn't what bothers me. I'm not talking about either of their respective stances, I am talking about the honesty of them and the tactics of their dialogue. In that, he comes across like a bit of a douche and utilizes blatantly inaccurate statements for the sake of attack politics.

Honestly, I suspect that is merely partisan bias on your part. I can come up with a lot longer list of Hillary dishonesty than most people could come up with about Paul. I can't imagine bothering simply because I recognize the politics of it, so to speak. Everything Hillary does and says is geared towards a political message, not honesty. But that's what politicians do.

[noviapriani]

So it's the correct move, much like it was for Obama.

I wouldn't say that the comparison here with Rand Paul and President Obama is very apt. I'll see if I can find some specific examples so that I can illustrate what I am talking about better.

[zolace]

99% of her stuff is fluff, and I can't respect that.

I'd rather have fluff (which is part of bureaucrats speaking with one voice on issues) than blatant dishonesty for the sake of personal political gain, and a willingness to engage in poor policy formulation for the sake of political gain. Fluff is annoying, but it isn't as dangerous.

I find Hillary worse than Paul in both cases, but then again, she isn't as bad as others...for example Warren. Cool. But Obama simply recognized she had the name recognition, so took advantage of her known history.

I want Sarah Palin and Lt. Col. Allen West to run for President and Vice President in 2016.

Well, that would be because you aren't very bright.

[Rigon]

They say he's the only candidate who has articulated a message that is potentially appealing to young Americans. Well, yeah. Articulate enough wildly - conflicting messages and you'll eventually get pretty much everyone covered.

I think we should stop providing aid to Israel.
I never said we should stop providing aid to Israel.

Bam. Everyone = happy.

[Lethn]

99% of her stuff is fluff, and I can't respect that.

I'd rather have fluff (which is part of bureaucrats speaking with one voice on issues) than blatant dishonesty for the sake of personal political gain, and a willingness to engage in poor policy formulation for the sake of political gain. Fluff is annoying, but it isn't as dangerous.

I find Hillary worse than Paul in both cases, but then again, she isn't as bad as others...for example Warren. Cool. But Obama simply recognized she had the name recognition, so took advantage of her known history.

I want Sarah Palin and Lt. Col. Allen West to run for President and Vice President in 2016.

Well, that would be because you aren't very bright.

You guys think 99% of her stuff is 'fluff'? To be frank, 99% of what she was talking about was her constantly referencing and trying to sell her fucking book whenever she can, even Jon Stewart was just like "Yeah, nobody gives a fuck about that" lol She'll run for presidency trying to sell Hilary branded T-Shirts and mugs next instead of actually talking about herself but something tells me that might actually be her plan so nobody pays attention to what she's actually doing.

[noviapriani]

They say he's the only candidate who has articulated a message that is potentially appealing to young Americans. Well, yeah. Articulate enough wildly - conflicting messages and you'll eventually get pretty much everyone covered.

I think we should stop providing aid to Israel.
I never said we should stop providing aid to Israel.

Bam. Everyone = happy.

Well, I think you're forgetting, for example, that a good chunk of Ron Paul's 2008 supporters went on to vote for Obama. So yes, libertarianism among young people is largely about non-interventionism and no-brainer social issues. That's what young people care about.


But even with that aside, I still don't think this is a fair characterization of libertarianism in America. Most libertarians do in fact support government solutions. Just not to the extent that they become leftarded.

[Rigon]

It pisses me off that people think that young Americans are libertarians waiting to be discovered, as if being in favor of pot legalization equates directly with being anti-regulation. Young people are statistically fairly convinced that climate change is a problem worth fixing and they tend to approve of government solutions to poverty and income inequality.

Like paying lip service to a couple no-brainer social issues and non-interventionism will get an entire generation on board.

No, the white male "don't touch my stuff" toddler mentality voting bloc already has a party.

[Rigon]

They say he's the only candidate who has articulated a message that is potentially appealing to young Americans. Well, yeah. Articulate enough wildly - conflicting messages and you'll eventually get pretty much everyone covered.

I think we should stop providing aid to Israel.
I never said we should stop providing aid to Israel.

Bam. Everyone = happy.

Well, I think you're forgetting, for example, that a good chunk of Ron Paul's 2008 supporters went on to vote for Obama. So yes, libertarianism among young people is largely about non-interventionism and no-brainer social issues. That's what young people care about.


But even with that aside, I still don't think this is a fair characterization of libertarianism in America. Most libertarians do in fact support government solutions. Just not to the extent that they become leftarded.

Well, see, I would look at the Paul-votes-going-to-Obama phenomenon and ask, why didn't those people actually go on to support Bob Barr? Well, my suspicion is that while the libertarian package includes attractive features for young people, ultimately they'll mostly end up voting center left when they can (nationally speaking) - the complete platform just makes more sense. Like, alright, Ron's foreign policy probably seemed worth voting for. But ending the Fed or the Department of Education, maybe not.

But I also think that there are two other really major elements to the Ron Paul phenomenon.

[noviapriani]

It pisses me off that people think that young Americans are libertarians waiting to be discovered, as if being in favor of pot legalization equates directly with being anti-regulation. Young people are statistically fairly convinced that climate change is a problem worth fixing and they tend to approve of government solutions to poverty and income inequality.

Like paying lip service to a couple no-brainer social issues and non-interventionism will get an entire generation on board.

No, the white male "don't touch my stuff" toddler mentality voting bloc already has a party.

I think if you look at the platforms of actual libertarian candidates instead of seemingly going by your experience with libertarian and Randian idealists, you'll be hard pressed to find a candidate in favor of getting rid of all taxes, privatizing all roads, getting rid of the standing army, scrapping welfare programs (incl. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.), completely and 100% deregulating food and drugs (incl. antibiotics), removing all environmental regulations, etc.


To use a couple of otters as an example, there are a lot more Publiuses than there are rothbards out there.

[Ron~Popeil]

It pisses me off that people think that young Americans are libertarians waiting to be discovered, as if being in favor of pot legalization equates directly with being anti-regulation. Young people are statistically fairly convinced that climate change is a problem worth fixing and they tend to approve of government solutions to poverty and income inequality.

Like paying lip service to a couple no-brainer social issues and non-interventionism will get an entire generation on board.

No, the white male "don't touch my stuff" toddler mentality voting bloc already has a party.

If you look a bit deeper into these studies you find that the support for these social programs and environmental stuff drops dramatically when you ask about taxation to pay for it. The young generation is very much in favor of lower taxes, even at the expense of social and environmental programs.