Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul,..

As would I, but not so with the ENLIGHTENED Rand supporters.

Lotta truth in that. For a lotta people here, what they want is control, not freedom (so long as they are part of the controlling class.

But now they have evidence of a 40,000 year old murder so it goes back far before the bible, much less agriculture.

Romney alienated several GOP constituencies with his words, actions and just for being Mitt Romney. If I knew that the GOP would hold both the House and the Senate with substantial majorities I would consider voting for O'Malley only. Gridlock is often times these days the best course of action in domestic politics. The reason I can't is those 70 and 80 year old members of the Supreme Court. And that makes me even more nervous about how the 2016 elections shake out. The Court is being packed with lock-step liberals and just one more will further polarize the country and begin to pit state against state.

It is what it is.

The GOP field of candidates (and supposed candidates) are about the most unelectable bunch I've seen in a long time. I can't understand why some of them are even bothering to run. Even the GOP candidate with the potential to draw the most votes may not be able to win the general election.

But it seems to me that Rand Paul has the ability to draw more votes than any other candidate in the GOP cast of characters.

It's going to be a tough election for the GOP even with the support of the libertarian faction of the GOP.

Without it, the GOP will definitely lose.

Rand is the only candidate who can deliver the libertarian vote.

Yup, those that don't vote against the dems may as well be in bed with em.

The GOP is badly split. The libertarian element within the GOP considers the establishment Republicans to be every bit as odious as the Democrats,....and I can't say that I disagree with that perspective.

Gotta hold the line 'B'

Which tells me how enlightened they are. Baby steps

Okay.

Well, the country has been pointed in the wrong direction through 2 Clinton administrations, 2 Bush administrations, and 2 Obama administrations. (at least)

If that doesn't enlighten someone, they're pretty much past hope.

Maybe the libertarian faction doesn't know what the answer is,...but even a damn fool ought to be able to see what the answer *ain't*.

Gimme Rand please.

I don't give a fig who the Republican candidate is, I'm going to vote for him to help prevent the utter disaster that the Hildabeast would inflict on our country.

If they nominate Idi Amin, Vlad the Impaler or Heinrich Himmler, that's who I'll vote for and be first in line when the polls open.

I think that's a legitimate point. I don't think Ben Carson has any chance at all, and Rand "should" have some appeal to the center and the Democrats that hate Hillary.

Rubio has been a Senator since 2009, Cruz since 2012, Rand since 2011

Walker is a 2 term governor, although his second term just started last year.

Rubio born '71, Cruz '70, Walker '67, Paul '63

Ben Carson has never held public office. I've reserved commenting on him because he seems popular but seriously - electing a man who has never held public office - not even dog catcher to the most political position in the world? A single term candidate has enough issues - I can't imagine a guy that has never legislated in his life.

Jeb Bush was Florida governor from 1999 to 2007 and you know his pedigree. As he said, the day he was born he met two presidents. He is 62 years old.

My point is that it doesn't really take much to understand why Bush is the old guard guy for the GOP. Not only does he have the most experience but he has the most connections and is a brand name that would have some level of respect globally (I have no idea whether that would be good or bad - its safe to say he won't be winning the nobel peace price on his foreign policy though).

From the GOP stand point, this is going to be an important election - because this really could be the last baby boomer era election. Of course all the big money backers in the GOP are boomers.

The concerns we had for Obama (and Palin) were they were novices in the political arena - Obama would have lost in a landslide (actually he never would have the nomination and would have been bounced early) if two things had not had happened - 1. The country tanked under Bush's watch - it tanked badly and the republican brand was toxic and 2. Hillary went war hawk early badly misreading the stomach the nation has for war (and I think some on here still do) while Obama went all in on being against the war when no other candidate would buck Bush and the 9/11 war campaign. It was a gamble that paid off big.

So to me the question is now - are conservative voters so fed up with the after effects of the Bush era that along with the failed politics of McCain and Romney they see Jeb! as retread of a losing formula to the White House. Clearly there is a significant % of GOP voters who refuse to see this and want the GOP equivalent of Clintons to represent them.

Or is there enough GOP tired of seeing the manufactured glossy candidate of GOP big government and are willing to accept a candidate that is rough around the edges, prone to make some rookie mistakes and is capable of redefining what conservative means (at least in terms of the last 2 decades)? Are there enough moderates that can't deal with rogue Obama to happily vote for a smaller government candidate (because they will not vote for Jeb! as an alternative)?

That is the election in 2016 to me.

I can't vote for Paul in the primary. If you think the world is on fire now, wait until he pulls ALL of our troops out of every foreign country.

However, if he wins the nomination, I'll have no other choice. I'm not staying home and I;m not voting for a Dem.

I'd have to say I'm in that camp also..

That about mirrors my position. Makes perfect sense to me....

I'm beginning to feel the same way about Pauls as most people felt about Obama. Please elect one and make them happy.

I don't know that all Bristoe's political analysis of Paul and his appeal to the center is right, but Rand is my first choice of candidates. Cruz is a distant second. I fail to see the point in voting for assclowns like Christie, Bush or even Scott Walker.

I would vote for Rand Paul. But I do not believe he could defeat Hillary if he was given the nomination.

As of right now, I don't see any candidate that can beat Hillary in 2016. The Republican party is an absolute mess and they're already out of time IMO.



Travis