Posted on 04/16/2014 7:43:00 PM PDT by This Just In
Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Your World" with Neil Cavuto former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) discussed the IRS targeting his organization when Cavuto asked, "Well, i don't want to be cynical Congressman, do you think any of this might have a thing or two to do with your son possibly running for president? "
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Rand seems to me a political demagogue. I think that he is more libertarian on amnesty, drugs and foreign policy than he lets on - although I think he is much more pragmatic than he is principled.
That is to say - he’ll bend his own principles and opinions to achieve his goals, although he is more libertarian by nature.
I can see myself voting for him against Hillary though. At least he is consistently conservative on some/most issues, and could be ‘persuaded’ to avoid amnesty etc. unlike ideological hardliners like Obama or Hillary.
BINGO!!
YOU do not know what you are talking about, I do my homework.
YOU are a LOW INFORMATION VOTER!
Pity!
“At least he is consistently conservative on some/most issues...”
Would you care to list those “most issues...”?
Would you vote for Paul if it was he against Hitlery?
Traitor?
No, just a bit crazy; gets it from daddy.
Fiscal
Pro-life
Small government
Pro-Gun
Privacy
Healthcare
Social Security
The fiscal situation is the most important priority for me. It’s not like Rand is Romney, who infamously did a 180 on most of his positions when he decided to run for President.
Fiscal? And I’m sure all the catastrophic government spending on illegal aliens is fiscally responsible, yes?
Small government? And I suppose the cost of illegal immigration is something “small government” has/can manage, yes?
Social Security? How exactly does Mr. Paul plan to protect our Social Security that’s already being spent?
Rand Paul’s platform doesn’t wash with a lot of Conservatives, and you failed to address “most”, as you stated, of the issues.
Well Rand’s platform doesn’t wash with me either, mostly because of amnesty, but I would rather pick the candidate that could be pressured into dropping amnesty, over the one who is hellbent on imposing it.
And he seems conservative enough on some/most issues, like I said. Better than Hillary, who is conservative on no issues.
The only real differences seem to be on amnesty, gay marriage, drugs and isolationism.
That’s a big deal with amnesty, and absolutely he shouldn’t be allowed to set that in motion.
But he has the ‘leave it to the states’ position that most have adopted on gay marriage, which is...tolerable. The War on Drugs when it comes to marijuana is like Prohibition II for me.
And Rand seems to drop isolationism when it comes to Iran, Russia etc, an acceptable position because I do think we’ve overreached in some areas but am against ignoring real threats to our national security at the same time.
There are a lot of proposals to deal with SS, like raising the retirement age, creating options for individuals to privately invest their funds for better RoC, etc.
Third party.
No other option.
A proper reply.
Rand Paul isn't running for state Governor, he is running to head federal government, in other words, gay marriage at the most influential level for public opinion and national acceptance of it.
Paul is OK with gay marriage, that means for millions of Americans in the military, federal employment and in immigration.
Paul didn't just come our in support of gay marriage, he mentioned "social issues". Rand Paul's liberalism on social issues, gay marriage for feds and immigration, and his immigration policy, are all big government positions.
I think it means his conservative rating is 100%. Only Cruz and Lee I think would be 100%.
Many of the polls have Paul leading a large field.
If the Neocons are smart they would actually try to keep amnesty off the table until 2021 and try to primary Rand for being weak on law and order.
As far as I know, Rand’s position on gay marriage is that he’s against it in principle, but wants to allow the states to decide whether or not to legalize it. So he won’t be in a position to legalize or not legalize on that level.
He is against federal imposition of traditional marriage, aka DOMA. He is evasive about DADT too, so he’s probably more okay with gay marriage than he lets on.
Like I said...it’s tolerable for me as long as he is openly against it, and does not advocate it or allow the gay marriage situation to progress further at any level of government. It’s far from ideal though, like temporarily staunching the wound while trying to save the country from fiscal disaster.
Wow, strange answer.
States don’at make federal law for gay marriage in the military, in federal employment and immigration, so you and Paul are avoiding the subject, Paul came out in support of gay marriage, he came out to end opposition to it.
Gay marriage is acceptable to you, that is why you call DOMA or a Constitutional amendment, “imposing” marriage on states, but gay marriage is not acceptable to conservatives.
Conservatives won’t be looking to support a candidate who is so anti-conservative, especially one that you even think is dishonest about how liberal he really is.
We only just finished a presidential election 5 months ago, it is far too early to be promoting the rino/libertarian.
Sigh. I looked this time to see if you kept on lying. You did. You keep on misinterpreting what has been explained to you over and over. Paul did not want to get involved in that issue at this time.
Compare the country's state to that of a homosexual with AIDS. Would the wise doctor first advise him to take scads of antibiotics, or to quit buggering?
Paul is in the "quit buggering" camp.
Dem, consider how the country ever got to a position where it was able to embrace such an arrogance against nature.
I think the economic is much more then economic. It also is fundamentally enabling of arrogance, of living in a fantasy world.
I actually spent several weeks “working” (if it could be called that) in the belly of the beast. Shangri-la, if I didn’t care about producing anything good.
I FIRMLY believe can get our country A MUCH SMALLER government
the social issues will take care of themselves!!! LOBBYISTS ARE THE
DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC!!!
Just to be clear, I would much rather vote for someone who is right on ALL the issues like Senator Cruz, but I was talking about a situation where it came down to Hillary vs Paul.
And yes, if that choice was given to me tomorrow I would probably end up voting for Paul, for the reasons that I’ve stated above.
It doesn’t mean I’m promoting him, I’ve said repeatedly my problems with him, several of whom are serious. (amnesty, shiftiness) Not to mention his lack of charisma compared to Cruz.
And I’m not for gay marriage, but that’s the definition if you do a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. You’re imposing on liberal states like New York and Massachusetts that would otherwise choose a different definition. It may be the RIGHT thing to do, but it’s still imposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.