Convince me why I shouldn't vote for Rand Paul

Personally speaking, depending on how they're used, I don't really mind of corporations use drones. That said, the big difference is that corporations aren't using drones to assassinate people, government is...

It honestly sounds like to me your looking for things to complain about Rand Paul about... it's as if he doesn't focus on every single issue the same you have something bad to say about it. That's silly.

The Constitution was designed to restrain GOVERNMENT. The Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law..." regarding so many things. Protecting people from other people and groups (businesses included) was left to the states in the Constitution.

And, yes, issues like prostitution and gambling should be dealt with at state and local level, not only because our Constitution demands it and its important part of our Federalist Republic (a system, I think, is a good system that we've gotten away from and thus we have so many problems today). The system was designed to make sure the federal government didn't get too big and too powerful by making most issues -- gambling and prostitution among them -- state issues. It also gave people the ability to have more of a voice and more involvement in the decisions. Think about it: if the federal government is deciding whether or not gambling should be legal how easy is it for the average citizen to have involvement or a voice in that decision? Not very. Especially if they live across the country. Now lets say that decision is made in each of the 50 states. That same person who lives across the country can more easily have involvement in that decision because its taking place in the state the reside.

The other obvious problem with addressing these issues at federal level is that they could just as easily decide to ban gambling and prostitution across the entire country as they could legalize it, just like with every issue they get their greedy little hands on, and then there's no end to tyranny.

 

This is where your argument falls apart. Look at Newt's positions on all these issues, which were way more offensive to primary voters than any of McCain or Romney's. He was pro-amnesty, he made a global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi for goodness sake! The man was a walking contradiction of both himself and Republican values and guess what? Primary voters STILL wanted him more than Mitt Romney, that's how bad they didn't want Mitt. Mitt had to spend an ungodly about of money to beat Newt.

 

You don't need to hold a religious view to belief all life is precious. And many believe life begins when the sperm and the egg meet. If it wasn't a living entity it wouldn't would never develop. But many will justify why abortion is an acceptable method of birth control.

 

If primary voters had wanted Newt, they would have nominated Newt.

It's really quite simple.

 

In a GOP primary, you should vote for The Amazing Randy - or Carnival Cruz, or the New Jersey Big Boy, or Rathole Ryan - to free yourself to whine about Jabba the Bush when he is nominated.

Turdblossom Rove, Carrot Top Adelson, and the NRC elite have already picked him to be their next Willard.

Personally, I hope that Randy exposes the prospective Bush III's complicity in contriving the multi-trillion dollar nation-building fiasco in Iraq. As a founder in the disgraced neocons' PNAC, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle, etc., Jabba was instrumental in befouling Brother Dub's big adventure, and relegating him to the pariah status in the GOP to which he has been consigned.



.

 

Carrot Top Adelson had to spend an ungodly amount of money to keep Newtie on life support.

To Newtie's credit (along with that "individually-mandated healthcare plan,) he was not averse to biting the hand that was feeding him, but the Carrot, apparently and unfortunately, had had his tetanus shots:

 

If Hilarious Hillary runs Democrats will line up to vote for her because, well, it's now time for a woman to be the president.

 

None of it his own money. That said something to me, that Mitt wasn't willing to put in any of his own fortune.

And while on the subject, Trump is also assumed to be a big contributor, but is not at all. He only gave $2,500 to Mitt Romney, the same amount he gave to Anthony Weiner and Charles Schumer, and Charlie Crist. And all of that is as a bundler, not individual contributions.

- - - Updated - - -

Hillary isn't my first choice. But she's miles better than anyone the Republican Party can offer.

 

As of late, any White Guys' assuming that it's time for a White Guy to be president does seem to have finally lost it's novelty.

An exclusive, continuous hold for 220 years can easily result in an imperious proprietary presumption.

 

Actually I was hoping the next candidate that is elected is actually qualified to do the job. Crazy idea I know, but hey.

 

Nor into creating jobs in America. It had self-deported to the Caymans, Bermuda, and the Bahamas.

 

Oh, right. Sure. You bet. Un-huh.

I'm afraid we'll just have to let the American electorate determine who that might be yet again, and those who fancy they know better sulk.

 

Correct but this is not the argument that Rand puts forth.

If you have a solid argument against abortion on the basis of "all life is precious" then do present it.

Before you begin I will get things started with one fact I hope will prevent you from making some of the more silly arguments.

Fact: Humans need to kill life in order to survive.

While all life may well be precious (just as bread to a starving man is precious) simple characteristic of being alive or being precious does not guarantee that entity rights.

Life is already well underway at the sperm stage but so what. As stated earlier the mere characteristic of being alive does not warrant entitlement to rights including the right to life.

Even if it is "human life" (sperm, human cell, and so on) entitlement to rights is not warranted.

 

I think Rand Paul is cozying up to the establishment because he knows it is his best shot at winning. I believe that Rand has the best chance of any non-establishment, non-RINO candidate. Even though he may be borderline establishment at this point, at least he's not establishment to the level of Thad Cochran and his goon squad of supporters.

 

Randy Paul is the only GOP candidate that is popular with younger, better-educated voters, and in trashing the noxious spectre of Cheney a while back he has positioned himself to again make an issue of Hillary Clinton's acquiescence in surrendering to the Bush the power to instigate his trillion dollar nation-building fiasco in Iraq. It cost her the nomination in '08, and could again be of significance in the election of '16, with its disastrous consequences still unfolding.

Paul is shrewdly moving away from his party's dependence upon the shrinking base (that Senator Graham acknowledges below,) and his initiatives in criminal sentencing reform with Corey Booker are symbolic of the pragmatic approach to problem solving that most Americans support.

The image of a hidebound ideologue - such as the opposition would hope to cast him - is frustrated by such a deft maneuvre.

Paul has already dealt with Carnival Cruz, Ricky Perry, and Christie has self-destructed.

One could do far worse than supporting Randy Paul.

 

Vote for Rand Paul if you like....



but he will NOT be allowed by the RNC to be the 2016 Nominee.