Posted on 04/17/2013 11:57:00 AM PDT by KentuckyTim
Rand Paul, Kentucky’s junior Senator and Tea Party favorite, announced today of his plans to pursue the Republican nomination for President in 2016.
Paul announced early Wednesday at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, that he will be visiting the primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina this summer – the first major candidate to make such an announcement from either side.....
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionschool.com ...
He has potential. His views on illegals are concerning.
Rand Paul is far from perfect but it isn’t correct to say that he is an isolationist.
He isn’t an interventionist - we all know that - but being against interventionism isn’t tantamount to instantly being an isolationist. This country is stuck in the either/or mode when it comes to foreign policy: you are either an isolationist or you are an interventionist, and that there is no in-between.
There is an in-between: neither/nor. Neither isolationist, nor interventionist.
As to the anti-semitism, if you have some objective, verifiable proof I would be interested in seeing it here on this thread.
I just watched his latest campaign ad and while I think it’s catchy, I just don’t think it’s convincing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdIev12fCPs
So, no thanks.
And we really mean it this time, not like when we all said "No Romneys!!!!"
Nope.. no way.. No more Libertarians on our ticket.
We’ve run Libertarians on our ticket? To whom are you referring?
I’m behind Rand, even including his non-interventionalist foreign policy (not the same as isolationist, mind you)and some sort of amnesty program.
Non-interventionalism has more of an historical basis in the US than the present policy of long-term occupation / nation-building. We can’t afford it, it is not appreciated, it costs us lives and others the lives of innocents, and begats big government encroachments most of us despise like the anti-Constitutional provisions of the Patriot Act and the surveillance and electronic eavesdropping programs, the Kill List, and the whole Perpetual War Police State apparatus. A nation at war can never be fully free. And “War is the Health of the State.”
With regard to immigration, I object to illegal immigration mostly because it is so disrespectful to those who have gone through the legal process. But outside of that, I have no objection, and believe an amnesty process to be a practical solution. Remember this: when we all get riled up about illegals getting on welfare and the like, we are really railing against the welfare state. If you truly believe that no man has the right to the income of another, then you can concede that an illegal has no more or less right to your income than some dude born inside the US border in El Paso. In the abscence of our greatest enemy, in the context of a truly free Republic, there would be no need to define who is “legal” or “illegal.”
When was the last time the GOP had a libertarian on a Presidential ticket?
2012
Let’s face it. MOST OF YOU will suck it up and vote for whatever RINO dufus ends up being the nominee.
I’m voting for a conservative AGAIN, even if he/she is not a republican
I think the US should help its allies. However I see no reason why we have a military base in practically every country while there is so much turmoil on our own soil!
We need to get out of the business of funding rebellions and manipulating other sovereign nations.
We also need to admit (as a party) that there IS such a thing as wasteful defense spending.
As an alum of the New Hampshire primary ‘80, ‘88, Buchanan ‘92 ‘96, Forbes ‘00,’08, Newt ‘12: if I use that background to project to 2016, I cannot see any grassroots conservative getting much traction in NH with Rand in the race. It will be Paul vs. one or two candidates backed by the insiders. Rubio, etc.
I guess I have an early excuse to skip the race ... NH has become dull & banal and has faded in importance with more emphasis on Iowa ... & SC, etc.
Of couse, nationally, if y’all make a list of acceptable candidates ... I expect Rand Paul would drain away much of the grassroots energy from their campaigns. Even more than Ron Paul did during his past 2 races.
my early prognosis is that Christie/Bush would made a push in NH with Rubio perhaps fairing fairly fair. Walker/Cruz, others, skipping the state for Iowa. So Rand would be the only one with a legit chance to beat Christie/Bush.
conclusion: keep the Rand hype off FreeRepublic and the local NH conservatives are on their own to make their own decision. Frankly, Rand has enuf resources that he doesn’t need much help from movement conservatives in NH.
Romney and ronPaul were the only 2 serious organizations in NH in ‘12. Fortunately, I do not live near Iowa, so I can avoid the Hawkeye Cauci in good conscience.
Bad link to news article. What about amnesty attributed to Rand Paul? I don’t really have the stomach for deporting innocent youngsters, but I am coming around, since their parents are guilty and attached literally to the innocent kids.
I do blame the USA for obviously encouraging invasion by Mexico, by failing utterly at enforcement, purposely. Now generations of duped illegals are trapped and paying the price, while the USA government gets off the hook scott free, guilty of tried and truly bait and switch tactics.
Link is invalid, and nowhere else on the interwebs is this being reported. So ... there is that.
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.