What Is Going On With Rand Paul? Do they have pictures or something???

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If Rand is the best we can do then there is no hope for a turnaround (not that I have any hope left anyway).

 

Any politician that wants to hand out amnesty to millions of criminals and is willing to cuddle up with the likes of Alexander is a politician we don't need; we might just as well vote for Hillary in 2016 (or whoever the Democrats run) or not bother.

 

I was beat over the head here last year about how "Romney" wasn't good enough; am I now supposed to support another political hack just because he's more palatable than Romney and isn't Hillery?

It always depends on the choice. To use that term "lesser of two evils", sometimes we are stuck with it, but it is mostly

from a list of things we don't like, rather than those we do like. There is no perfect politician. Well, the word "politician"

is bothersome, anyway. Saying you might as well vote for Hillary is conceding you will accept her ideas. I will never

do that.

 

Know the enemy and work hard against it, even if it is a Republican, but most always if it is a Democrat of late. About

the only way we will get rid of Potomac Fever is to dismantle the government and put safeguards in to protect against

future abuses. They have control over the money flowing in and out of DC. Limit the money flow and protect from

ways to increase it. Make our argument out of pure reason and fight like Hell anyone who uses any emotional argument

to attain more money. Those are and were the arguments for every welfare program, and many other ones.

 

You want more libertarians in government? Get them to build from grassroots into small offices held before we try the

presidential route. This all or nothing mentality has gotten them nowhere for how many decades? Pretty much forever.

[Hershmeister]

Dead hooker or live boy

[Oh Shoot]

....

Unless something really strange happens with Rubio, he is done for to go up the political ladder, but Paul

and Cruz are becoming leaders...

 

I disagree. If I had to bet, I'd pick Rubio as GOP nominee. While Paul and Cruz may do well in some primaries, no way either will get the nomination, and should I be wrong about that, I fell comfy predicting that either would lose the general election resoundingly, maybe not as bad as Goldwater way back when, but wouldn't even be close.

 

Paul and Cruz may well become lifelong career pols on the Hill, but that brand of conservatism will never again be in real presidential contention unless/until the Big Pain hits to sway folks back the basics of the Republic.

 

The only reason we see such strong GOP representation on the state levels currently is because the party has done a much better job of gerrymandering than the Dems over the last 10-15 years.

 

- OS

Edited August 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[tnguy]

I'm a pretty hard core libertarian (as many of you already know), and I'm not completely onboard with the open borders plan that some call for...  but it's so far down the list on things I'm really worried about...  and almost everything higher than open borders Rand Paul is right inline with my thinking....  

 

I'm not sure you're ever going to find a politician that will agree 100% with you, I'm happy if we're in agreement on my top 5 concerns ;)

 

I usually tend to turn things around to get perspective. Do I think I should be allowed to live and work wherever in the world that I please? Of course. So, in general, I feel I should extend that to others. There are certain qualifications, of course.

[RobertNashville]

I'm a pretty hard core libertarian (as many of you already know), and I'm not completely onboard with the open borders plan that some call for...  but it's so far down the list on things I'm really worried about...  and almost everything higher than open borders Rand Paul is right inline with my thinking....  

 

I'm not sure you're ever going to find a politician that will agree 100% with you, I'm happy if we're in agreement on my top 5 concerns ;)

I admit, there are plenty of important issues out there but there are only a handful of issues that are paramount for me; support for the 2A and the plain language it's written in, is one; willing to cut our spending to at least no more than revenues is another; securing our borders (with whatever it takes including our military) and getting the 20 million illegals out is another.

 

Anyone who is 1) willing to (or leaning toward) give amnesty to these invaders (and they ARE invaders; some with weapons; most without), and/or  2) who wants open borders is simply not worthy to be President of the United States (or hold office at all for that matter).

 

This invasion of uneducated masses (or diehard criminals) into our country WILL destroy the country as surely as an invading army and right now neither "party" wants to do a damn thing about it; I'm not sure what could be a higher priority.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good point, Mac, but I think Rubio has the same advisers that Romney has, and if he follows that course, it

will cook him. Rubio should have stayed away from the power brokers on the immigration issue. I think the

Republicans, down here in the hinterlands are tired of the way the powerbrokers are sending us crap. At

least I read it like that for the moment. That's the trouble with politics. People tend to forget something said

five minutes ago.

 

You could very well be right.

 

The ones of us who give a damn, like you and I, are wanting someone who will shoot straight and not be

consumed by Potomac Fever. I wonder if it will ever come bubbling to the surface without a bang?

[Oh Shoot]

....The ones of us who give a damn, like you and I, are wanting someone who will shoot straight and not be

consumed by Potomac Fever. I wonder if it will ever come bubbling to the surface without a bang?

 

Nope. The bang of hunger, poverty, and insecurity will have to hit a tipping point within whatever the middle class has come to be defined before Big Brother can be whacked at the knees.

 

Might not take a cataclysmic event though, as we're already teetering on about a 50/50 split between earners and takers. Hell, half the earners are takers too -- the working poor may become the turning point, dunno.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

I disagree. If I had to bet, I'd pick Rubio as GOP nominee. While Paul and Cruz may do well in some primaries, no way either will get the nomination, and should I be wrong about that, I fell comfy predicting that either would lose the general election resoundingly, maybe not as bad as Goldwater way back when, but wouldn't even be close.

 

Paul and Cruz may well become lifelong career pols on the Hill, but that brand of conservatism will never again be in real presidential contention unless/until the Big Pain hits to sway folks back the basics of the Republic.

 

The only reason we see such strong GOP representation on the state levels currently is because the party has done a much better job of gerrymandering than the Dems over the last 10-15 years.

 

- OS

I've no idea if Rubio will get the nomination...he may well do so because I'm sure the party powers like him; but real conservatives, I think, are done with him and won't vote for him (at least not in significant numbers).

[Oh Shoot]

I've no idea if Rubio will get the nomination...he may well do so because I'm sure the party powers like him; but real conservatives, I think, are done with him and won't vote for him (at least not in significant numbers).

 

He'll get it in same way Romney did, but easier. Paul and Cruz will shake out like Paul Sr., Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry.

 

Matter of fact, only guy to beat Rubio might be Christie, but I still think there's outside change he'll run as independent, with the goal being Hillary's veep. Really.

 

Only thing certain is that the US electorate will not go with a true conservative, no way, no how, unless something very BIG and very BAD happens first.

 

- OS

Edited August 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

...Only thing certain is that the US electorate will not go with a true conservative, no way, no how, unless something very BIG and very BAD happens first.

Oh now I most definitely disagree with that.  The only thing certain is that if a conservative isn't in the top spot of the Republican ticket (or a truly viable third-party) then the electorate will not elect him/her because they won't have the opportunity.

The only thing really stopping a true conservative from being elected is that we haven't had one make it to the ticket since RR and even he had his "liberal" moments. What RR did do very well and what the R party seems incapable of doing is not just communicating conservative ideals and principles but also connecting to people.  I suggest that the majority of people (at least people engaged enough to vote) are more "conservative" than liberal on a majority of issues (not the same issue(s) for everyone of course) and if a conservative candidate can communicate his ideas and positions in a way that can resonate with those folks he/she can most certainly be elected.

 

Of course, we now have a "press" that is nothing more than a part of the Democrats campaign committee and it wasn't always that way but I think even that can be overcome.

[RichardR]

Of course, we now have a "press" that is nothing more than a part of the Democrats campaign committee and it wasn't always that way but I think even that can be overcome.

I suggest applying a copious amount of tar & feathers to the problem area.

[RobertNashville]

I suggest applying a copious amount of tar & feathers to the problem area.

Well then somebody had better start raising a lot of extra chickens and making/finding tar (where the heck does tar come from anyway???) because it would take a LOT of tar and feathers.  ;)

[Oh Shoot]

Oh now I most definitely disagree with that.  The only thing certain is that if a conservative isn't in the top spot of the Republican ticket (or a truly viable third-party) then the electorate will not elect him/her because they won't have the opportunity.

 

Let me get this straight. You say a true conservative can't get the Republican nomination, which is voted on in largest part by Republicans and conservative leaning others.

 

But if somehow he did magically squeak out the nomination,  then enough liberals would cross over to put him in office?

 

I'm afraid the logic fails me on that one.

 

 

- OS

Edited August 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

Let me get this straight. You say a true conservative can't get the Republican nomination, which is voted on in largest part by Republicans and conservative leaning others.
 
But if somehow he did magically squeak out the nomination,  then enough liberals would cross over to put him in office?
 
I'm afraid the logic fails me on that one.
 
 
- OS

What??? I didn't say anything of the sort.  :confused:
 
You said...

...Only thing certain is that the US electorate will not go with a true conservative, no way, no how, unless something very BIG and very BAD happens first.

 
And I said I don't agree (that a true conservative can't get elected) for the reasons I stated above.
 
I never said anything one way or the other about a true conservative not being able to get the nomination; I simply pointed out that there hasn't been a true conservative running for President as a Republican for anybody to vote for in many, many, years.

Edited August 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

??? I didn't say anything of the sort. You said, above, that the electorate would never go for a conservative; I don't agree for the reasons I stated.

 

You implied a true conservative can't make it to the ticket. Which seems to be true.

 

So if one can't even get the nomination via the most favorably narrowed electorate, how could he possibly win the general if lightening struck and he did get the nomination,  where well over half the total electorate is most decidedly not conservative.

 

- OS

Edited August 2, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

You implied a true conservative can't make it to the ticket. Which seems to be true.

 

So if one can even get the nomination via the most favorable electorate, how could he possibly win the general if lightening struck and he did, where over half the total electorate is most decidedly not conservative.

 

- OS

It's true that I don't that a true a conservative can get the nomination; not with current Republican leadership but that wasn't what I was talking about at all.

 

I was only responding to your statement that the electorate (voters I'm assuming you mean) would never go for (as in vote for) a true conservative; that's what I disagree with.  Whether a true conservative will ever again be given a chance to run (as a Republican) is, in my mind, an completely different (albeit related) issue.

 

I absolutely believe that the electorate would vote for a true conservative if one runs and is able to communicate with the people (has the finances, etc.) because I believe that issue by issue, most people tend to BE conservative even if they don't identify themselves as such. Obviously, hardcore liberal Democrats will never be swayed but hardcore on either side is not where elections are won or lost anyway.

Edited August 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

It's true that I don't that a true a conservative can get the nomination; not with current Republican leadership but that wasn't what I was talking about at all.

 

I was only responding to your statement that the electorate (voters I'm assuming you mean) would never go for (as in vote for) a true conservative; that's what I disagree with.  Whether a true conservative will ever again be given a chance to run (as a Republican) is, in my mind, an completely different (albeit related) issue.

 

I absolutely believe that the electorate would vote for a true conservative if one runs and is able to communicate with the people (has the finances, etc.) because I believe that issue by issue, most people tend to BE conservative even if they don't identify themselves as such. Obviously, hardcore liberal Democrats will never be swayed but hardcore on either side is not where elections are won or lost anyway.

 

Maybe I get it. You don't think anybody in the last two GOP primaries was a true conservative, then, right?

 

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The problem with the nomination and primary process is at least twofold-- 1-- The local and state geezers who control the R party "play favorites" among the candidates, rather than merely presiding over what the R electorate express with their votes. 2-- In cycles where one D candidate has a lock, or alternately where any of the leading D's are equally acceptable to democrats, they can in many states crossover vote in R primaries, saddling us with such as Romney, McCain, and G. W. Bush.

 

AND THEN after the above two factors have saddled the party with a piss-poor excuse for a candidate-- The bread-and-butter backbone of the party, conservatives and libertarians-- They MIGHT hold their nose and vote but they certainly won't donate much time and money campaigning for a crap sandwich, and they might not even show up to vote if they have something better to do. Changing the oil in the car, cleaning the guns, cutting the lawn or whatever.

 

So I agree with Robert that the only R prez candidate with a CHANCE to win would be a feller who excites the base. If the base ain't even behind the guy, independents and right-leaning democrats can't elect the RINO without a solid base turnout.

 

So it seems BOTH more likely that a conservative could win AND more likely that a conservative can't be nominated.

[RobertNashville]

Maybe I get it. You don't think anybody in the last two GOP primaries was a true conservative, then, right?

 

- OS

True conservative?  Not really...some are certainly closer than others of course.  Going back to the most recent race, I would say Michelle  Bachmann followed by Rick Santorum would be the most conservative of those who ran but they never seemed to have the "spark" necessary to get anywhere. More to the point, I'm not sure that either of them had the political courage to do what needs to be done (although I wish one of them had been given the chance to prove me wrong).

 

Romney was certainly no true conservative but I was able to support him with a clear conscious because I believed, at his core, that he was a decent, honest man who would at least try to do what was best for the country even if I didn't happen to agree with it...compared to the slime ball, America-hating, racist, tin-plated dictator want-a-be who occupies the oval office today I am still convinced I made the right choice. ;)

 

As I've shared in other threads, I frankly don't have any real hope left that things can be turned around at this point...I hope I'm wrong.  Unfortunately, no one, and I mean no one seems to have the guts or even the desire to do what needs to be done even if they had the power to do it...the only thing that will save this country from financial collapse is going to be massive, and I do mean MASSIVE spending cuts and a shrinkage of government (and government services) that will impact EVERYONE in a negative way.  Ultimately I think that pain will be easier to take than the pain that will come from doing nothing but it's tough to convince people of that and any office holder who takes the right course will have to do so with the near certainty that he/she won't win reelection (that's rather a tough expectation for a politician).  ;)

[Oh Shoot]

True conservative?  Not really...some are certainly closer than others of course.  Going back to the most recent race, I would say Michelle  Bachmann followed by Rick Santorum would be the most conservative of those who ran but they never seemed to have the "spark" necessary to get anywhere. More to the point, I'm not sure that either of them had the political courage to do what needs to be done (although I wish one of them had been given the chance to prove me wrong).

 

Romney was certainly no true conservative but I was able to support him with a clear conscious because I believed, at his core, that he was a decent, honest man who would at least try to do what was best for the country even if I didn't happen to agree with it...compared to the slime ball, America-hating, racist, tin-plated dictator want-a-be who occupies the oval office today I am still convinced I made the right choice. ;)

 

As I've shared in other threads, I frankly don't have any real hope left that things can be turned around at this point...I hope I'm wrong.  Unfortunately, no one, and I mean no one seems to have the guts or even the desire to do what needs to be done even if they had the power to do it...the only thing that will save this country from financial collapse is going to be massive, and I do mean MASSIVE spending cuts and a shrinkage of government (and government services) that will impact EVERYONE in a negative way.  Ultimately I think that pain will be easier to take than the pain that will come from doing nothing but it's tough to convince people of that and any office holder who takes the right course will have to do so with the near certainty that he/she won't win reelection (that's rather a tough expectation for a politician).  ;)

 

- Gotcha regarding the candidates.

 

- Agree about Mitt. thought he'd actually make a decent president, and except for Ronnie, even a chance at being the best since DDE. I'm likely a minority of one on that, I'm sure.

 

- And fully on board with your last paragraph. Unlike most others though, I think population/resources and the US lifestyle make it an inevitable outcome, ecology translated to economy, as all things are in modern civilization. But posit that liberal policy has sped the ship toward the iceberg, and will insure the worst collision possible. And possibly even face it without firearms.

 

- OS

Edited August 2, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[tnguy]

Oh now I most definitely disagree with that.  The only thing certain is that if a conservative isn't in the top spot of the Republican ticket (or a truly viable third-party) then the electorate will not elect him/her because they won't have the opportunity.

The only thing really stopping a true conservative from being elected is that we haven't had one make it to the ticket since RR and even he had his "liberal" moments. What RR did do very well and what the R party seems incapable of doing is not just communicating conservative ideals and principles but also connecting to people.  I suggest that the majority of people (at least people engaged enough to vote) are more "conservative" than liberal on a majority of issues (not the same issue(s) for everyone of course) and if a conservative candidate can communicate his ideas and positions in a way that can resonate with those folks he/she can most certainly be elected.

 

Of course, we now have a "press" that is nothing more than a part of the Democrats campaign committee and it wasn't always that way but I think even that can be overcome.

 

Yep. Most Republicans simply don't believe their own platform ("I had to destroy the free market to save it" or whatever) and don't see it as something that's a draw to voters so they start floundering around trying to attract special interest groups like the Democrats do.

 

Politician is no longer a calling, it's a job. And if you can't get a job at Company A, you apply at Company B and wear their uniform instead.

Edited August 2, 2013 by tnguy

[Guest Bassman17SC]

Is there some virus going around Washington DC that turns Republicans with convictions into to RINO hacks?

Yes, it is the mental disorder called liberalism.  Sure must be something on the water up there.