Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Rand Paul wants constitutional admendment


38 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

It is a great idea.  I am already a Rand Paul supporter if he decides to run for President.  We need someone like that to get the nation back on the right track. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

this is a excellent idea, may get rid of some of these junk bills. I would love to see a Paul/Ryan combination for the next election.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

this is a excellent idea, may get rid of some of these junk bills. I would love to see a Paul/Ryan combination for the next election.

What is Rand Paul's position on Israel?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Here is a link to a story about Rand Paul on Israel. 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347151/rand-paul-and-Israel

 

One thing I do want to say concerning a potential Rand Paul Presidential run is that I never supported his Father.  He has too many radical views I don't support.  Rand Paul holds to Libertarian values, but not to the extreme that his Father does. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

im often wondering if perhaps a libertarian might not be a good thing for our country. Ive often considered them off the wall-and many of them are, tend to follow the conspiricy theories a little to much, however take those aside I like a lot of their ideas.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

this is a excellent idea, may get rid of some of these junk bills. I would love to see a Paul/Ryan combination for the next election.

What is Rand Paul's position on Israel?

 

That is a good question ...I shall try to look that up and find an answer I just wondered what people really thought of the idea that government people should not make laws that they could exempt themselves from :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

this is a excellent idea, may get rid of some of these junk bills. I would love to see a Paul/Ryan combination for the next election.

What is Rand Paul's position on Israel?

 

That is a good question ...I shall try to look that up and find an answer I just wondered what people really thought of the idea that government people should not make laws that they could exempt themselves from :)

 

The Israel thing was kind of a red flag with his father.  Yeah, sauce for the goose . . .

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Butero hath said:

"To be perfectly honest with you, I am not sure. I haven't heard him speak on the subject. He is my first choice right now, but it is possible something could come out about his views down the road that could change my mind. Right now, I would be for a Rand Paul/Ted Cruz ticket. When the candidates get serious, then the debates begin, and we find out more about the intricate details about where they stand on all the issues. In most cases, my first choice is who I wind up sticking with. In 2008, my first choice was Fred Thompson, and I stayed with him till he dropped out of the race. In 2012, my first choice was Rick Santorum, and I voted for him in the Primary. It is very seldom that my initial gut feeling turns out to be wrong, at least for me, whether they win or not.

It is unusual when I go with the eventual winner during the primary season. In 1984, it was a no brainer to support Ronald Reagan. In 1988, I voted for Pat Roberson. In 1992 and 1996, I voted for Pat Buchanan. I did support Bush in 2000 and 2004. In the case of Bush, I thought he would be more conservative than he turned out to be, but I was also concerned about his opponents, and wanted the strongest candidate possible."

 

I don't know anyone better that Texan Perry as a viable candidate.

 

As to Ronald the Ray Gun, he was a great disappointment.  Between him & Bush I, 5 SCOTUS justices were appointed, & 3 voted to continue allowing baby-murder.  Reagan wrote a book opposing abortion, but did nada to stop it.  I can't think of one thing astrologer Reagan did for the Christian cause.  He thot what was important was smaller govt & a big military; but what really counts is God's blessing.  Our holocaust was the most important issue. 

 

IMHO, Bush II was more pro-life than any other pretzel since Row v Wade.  But he got distracted by 911, not being able to go home, flying around like having no home in his Air Force 1.  Then he got the nation bogged down in Afghanistan & Iraq. WW II vet Bush I knew how to fight a war.  You go in big time, whup em & then go home.  You don't stay there taking pot shots from behind buildings trying to be the savior spreading the gospel of democracy to people who don't want it.

 

Then only explanation I can think of for the Repubs ending up w/ the worst possible candidate out of the runners, is that the democrats crossed over in the primaries, knowing that Ob was going to be the demo candidate anyway.

 

While I rant on off topic,

let me say that the only salvation I know of for the Republicrats is to garner the Hispanic vote by majoring on pro-life, save the babies from murder, as the Hispanics are against baby-murder.  I think the same might work with Afro-americans.   They need to stop being chicken.  I would be for letting all the illegal invading Mexicans vote, if their vote could be gathered to stop our holocaust.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

First of all, I did provide a link showing that Rand Paul supports Israel.  That is why I went ahead and removed a post where I had said I didn't know his position.  I do now.  Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was the best President in my lifetime.  I didn't go along with his support for the Brady bill, but it is obvious why he went along with that.  His position on Supreme Court nominees was qualified judges with no litmus test.  You can think someone will act one way, but when they get on the court, they are completely different.  I know Reagan would speak to us at the March For Life in Washington, and he was very pro-life. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I totally support such an amendment.  As for Rand Paul.....I'm not that impressed with him.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I totally support such an amendment.  As for Rand Paul.....I'm not that impressed with him.

You said you are supporting Bobby Jindal didn't you?  I prefer Rand Paul, but I would have no problem voting for Jindal.  I actually think Rick Perry could enter the race, and make a good candidate.  I am sure he would be more prepared the second time around, and his record of success in Texas shows he is very qualified to run the country. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Perhaps, it is a politically expedient move to gain attention...does anyone really think this will pass congress??? I too am not impressed with Paul, and especially not Cruz. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Perhaps, it is a politically expedient move to gain attention...does anyone really think this will pass congress??? I too am not impressed with Paul, and especially not Cruz. 

It is not a matter of whether it passes or not.  It is a matter of standing up for what is right, getting your ideas out there, and gradually winning public support.  I am impressed with both of them, and Rand Paul would be my first choice and Ted Cruz my second choice if they were both running. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Butero - It is not a matter of whether it passes or not.

 

I'm simply suggesting that it is certainly advantageous to offer ideas when knowing that the likelihood of their passage is at best remote. I would hope the Republican party can regain it's footing at some point and offer a viable candidate...I think Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office. (And his father would certainly be an easy target)

 

Although "platforms"  and ideas suggest one thing true action is another...I actually see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

First of all, I did provide a link showing that Rand Paul supports Israel.  That is why I went ahead and removed a post where I had said I didn't know his position.  I do now.  Reagan wasn't perfect, but he was the best President in my lifetime.  I didn't go along with his support for the Brady bill, but it is obvious why he went along with that.  His position on Supreme Court nominees was qualified judges with no litmus test.  You can think someone will act one way, but when they get on the court, they are completely different.  I know Reagan would speak to us at the March For Life in Washington, and he was very pro-life. 

It seems that they are all that way "power corrupts power and absolute power corrupts absolutely" I believe is a relative statement

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Love is Alive -It seems that they are all that way "power corrupts power and absolute power corrupts absolutely" I believe is a relative statement

 

I believe the actual expression is "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely".  And it does seem that this holds true on both sides of the aisle.  When one looks back on myriad issues certainly not much has changed...  except that the vitriol and fracture have come to a point where congress is stagnant.  Compromise in politics is not a dirty word, but rather a necessity.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Butero - It is not a matter of whether it passes or not.

 

I'm simply suggesting that it is certainly advantageous to offer ideas when knowing that the likelihood of their passage is at best remote. I would hope the Republican party can regain it's footing at some point and offer a viable candidate...I think Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office. (And his father would certainly be an easy target)

 

Although "platforms"  and ideas suggest one thing true action is another...I actually see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time.

This is something I find interesting.  On the one hand, you claim "Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office," and then you lament that you "see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time."  I want extreme change, and that is why I want a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz to be President. 

 

On the other hand, if my only objective is winning, my ticket would be Rick Perry and Susanna Martinez.  I think that would be a winning ticket, and I could support it.  If I want my ideal ticket, it would be Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.  What I don't want is a RINO like Chris Cristy. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Butero -On the one hand, you claim "Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office," and then you lament that you "see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time."

 

As I also noted in another post "Compromise in politics is not a dirty word, but rather a necessity."  I view Cruz as an extremist that will simply create more dissension and divisiveness...which is exactly what he has succeeded in accomplishing so far.  Whether one chooses to accept it as reality or not, the fact is that movement forward requires some "give and take". Intractable ideology serves little purpose in government other then to allow...well exactly where we are, a do nothing house of reps and a stagnant government.  (Also, Cruz's father will be a liability and Rand certainly has race issues that will be examined more closely) The problem will always be that though one desires "extreme change" another wants the same thing but in a different direction, thus we arrive at an impasse unless compromise enters the arena.

 

Sadly there was a time when though differences were wide the reps and dems could meet in the best interest of America. Today it would appear party loyalty takes priority over moving this country forward.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Butero -On the one hand, you claim "Cruz has proven himself too extreme for winning national office," and then you lament that you "see little difference between the two political parties over the course of time."

 

As I also noted in another post "Compromise in politics is not a dirty word, but rather a necessity."  I view Cruz as an extremist that will simply create more dissension and divisiveness...which is exactly what he has succeeded in accomplishing so far.  Whether one chooses to accept it as reality or not, the fact is that movement forward requires some "give and take". Intractable ideology serves little purpose in government other then to allow...well exactly where we are, a do nothing house of reps and a stagnant government.  (Also, Cruz's father will be a liability and Rand certainly has race issues that will be examined more closely) The problem will always be that though one desires "extreme change" another wants the same thing but in a different direction, thus we arrive at an impasse unless compromise enters the arena.

 

Sadly there was a time when though differences were wide the reps and dems could meet in the best interest of America. Today it would appear party loyalty takes priority over moving this country forward.

Do you want the two parties to be different or nearly the same so they can compromise?  You are confusing me.  I am on the side of the right wing.  I support the most conservative candidates in most cases, but I will vote for a candidate if they get the nomination that is less than perfect.  I am happy there is obstruction in the House.  More obstruction means the passage of less intrusive bills.  I am fine with gridlock. 

 

But again, I gave you a winning ticket for 2016, and one I could support.  RICK PERRY/SUSANNA MARTINEZ.  They are qualified, and they have a great chance of winning. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Butero - Do you want the two parties to be different or nearly the same so they can compromise?  You are confusing me.  I am on the side of the right wing.

 

I'm suggesting that if you want 100 and I want 50 we should be able to come to some agreement in between.  Ted Cruz believes that some agreement is for everyone to agree with him otherwise....  As to the two parties one can argue the "merits" of the platforms, ideas, and vision but history shows that at the end of the day the very same issues remain without successful solution.

 

I am happy there is obstruction in the House.  More obstruction means the passage of less intrusive bills.  I am fine with gridlock.

 

Then you should have little to complain about.  On the other hand I see America's clear movement towards plutocracy and corpratism as disastrous.  I believe that there are serious issues facing this country on all fronts and we need a "government" willing and able to accept and face those many challenges. It is interesting to note that in todays idealogical warfare within the republican party Ronald Reagan would have been considered too liberal, especially in norquistian terms.

 

I personally don't think Perry has a chance...he was pretty dismal in his last attempt. Perhaps if the tea party goes the way of the "moral majority" the republicans can field some strong candidates.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I totally support such an amendment.  As for Rand Paul.....I'm not that impressed with him.

You said you are supporting Bobby Jindal didn't you?  I prefer Rand Paul, but I would have no problem voting for Jindal.  I actually think Rick Perry could enter the race, and make a good candidate.  I am sure he would be more prepared the second time around, and his record of success in Texas shows he is very qualified to run the country. 

 

Yes, Bobby Jindal is my pick for 2016 but.....my choice doesn't matter much in the grander scheme of things and there's been no indication Jindal will run.  I don't dislike Rand Paul, don't get me wrong, I just don't feel any excitement about him.  Rick Perry has been a great governor down here but I can't see him as President; I guess his appeal is limited to a conservative demographic and I don't believe he could beat Hillary Clinton if she's the candidate.  That being said, I'm not sure she will run; she will be 69 years old next year.  The same age as Reagan when he was elected and it's widely accepted that he was in the very early stage of Alzeimer's while still in the White House.  Bad scenario there.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Obviously there is no perfect candidate, or even close for that matter, that would be a capable of meeting the expectations and desires of all. In addition one must contend with congress, and that is the dilemma at present. If idealogues force stagnation then perhaps those who see the plus side of a dysfuntional government will remain joyful while others will view it as a further note of decline.

 

Presidents are similar to pitchers and quarterbacks in that  they are praised for the team's success and fully blamed for the team's failings.  Somehow in all of this congress gets a pass, oh yes their approval ratings are dreadful and people complain, but in truth it isn't my senator or congress person to blame it is yours.......so I will, just as you, elect the same people back in again, and again, and ......  And now we will elect some intractable idealogue in then he/she will do all within their power to see that absolutely nothing gets done.

 

I agree with Rand Paul's amendment ideas though I would take them much further...like that would ever happen.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

im often wondering if perhaps a libertarian might not be a good thing for our country. Ive often considered them off the wall-and many of them are, tend to follow the conspiricy theories a little to much, however take those aside I like a lot of their ideas.

While i do think a liberal is not what we need, my question was do you think that the idea is a good one. Personally, I do not think that congress should be exempt from any laws. I think that they should have to follow each and every law in which we have to follow. :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0