Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Delta Dawn
If it is either he or Hillary, then we must go with Rand Paul.

Obama for 8 years followed by Hillary for 4-8 years would be far more disastrous that Rand Paul being elected.

Rand Paul is far more fiscally conservative than she (by a mile), and is more socially conservative than she (maybe not as much as Bush vs. Hillary would be) but still, he is NOT pro-choice.

So in him would be found two legs of the three-legged stool, and a position that isn't as interventionist as Bush, but not an isolationist either (despite what the LMSM says about him, since they fear him). Rand Paul is neither isolationist nor interventionist. He tends to be right down the middle.

Would we throw it all away if it came down to that one last leg of conservatism and let her walk in the WH?

Jeb Bush? No way. Romney? No way. Christie? No way. They are all RINOS.

28 posted on 07/28/2014 4:10:38 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Rand is Chamberlain in training, and I don’t mean Wilt...

It will not be Rand and Hillary, you can take that to the bank...


35 posted on 07/28/2014 4:23:27 PM PDT by Delta Dawn (Fluent in two languages: English and cursive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Imagine a debate. Hillary vs rand Paul

He would join candy Crowley in lauding her, her philosophy and her history/resume

No republican who negates the constitution and his current and future(WH) place in it vis a vis doing his job that will get elected


39 posted on 07/28/2014 4:33:12 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson