Rand Paul wants constitutional admendment

[Guest Butero]

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

 

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

[MorningGlory]

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

[Guest Butero]

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. 

[Tolken]

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. 

[Guest Butero]

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. 

[Tolken]

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.

[Love is alive]

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

[Tolken]

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.

[Guest Butero]

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. 

[Tolken]

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.