And I very much appreciate the great response which also gave me quite a chuckle with your Jerry Springer reference. Now...where are the chairs? :)
Posted on 10/02/2013 12:54:47 PM PDT by PaulCruz2016
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) narrowly leads the pack of potential GOP contenders in 2016, according to a new poll.
If the GOP presidential primary were held today, 17 percent of GOP voters would elect Paul, according to a new Quinnipiac Poll released Wednesday. He leads among Tea Party Republicans as well, with 22 percent.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie rates second with 13 percent, followed by Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) with 12 percent and Jeb Bush with 11 percent. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) garner 10 percent. Nineteen percent of Republicans are undecided.
Rubio’s numbers have dropped 7 percent since an April survey.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Enjoy your (short) stay.
HAHA, Christie beats Cruz by 3% even after that all night speech. Who did they poll?
He failed to quote this part...
The numbers contrast with a Democratic affiliated Public Policy Polling survey released last week that showed Cruz surging after his 21-hour floor speech against ObamaCare. Cruz closely trails Paul among Tea Party voters, taking 20 percent.
you just joined FR t0day? congrats and LOL
Cruz will kick his arse newb!
The article fails to quote when the poll was taken. It was Monday through Sunday last week, so about half was before Cruz’ filibuser.
From September 23 - 29, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,497 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.
Bull shiite muslim. The top 4 are non-starters and I won’t vote for any of them.
IBTZ.
So you're hyping an individual who has this to say about Zero in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 18, 2013:
"And I think what a tragedy it would it would have been if he [Obama] had gone to prison. What a tragedy it would have been that America wouldn't have gotten to see Barack Obama as a leader."
Free Republic is a pro-God, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military site for Conservative activism. It's not a forum for surrender monkeys and Obama defenders.
Well done.
Paul and Cruz blow everyone else out of the water. The GOP is finished as a viable political party if they nominate anyone else.
Who takes these polls, and where? Time for them to get off the East Coast!
Go Bush!
(just kidding.....)
I would take either one of them over Obama or Hillary.
I’ll be voting for Ted Cruz, not a cartoon.
So tell us noobe, do you like Gladiator movies?
IBTZ.
IMHO this describes the political philosophy of both Paul and Cruz. Any differences are minor in comparison, We would be blessed to have either one as POTUS.
Jeb Bush? A sentence from Eric Cartman comes to mind that involves round things....
Me too... the newb just irritated me.
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.
Just where does Obama-apologist Rand Paul stand on that core principle of Conservatism? Like father, like son or does the younger Paul support a strong offense?
Paul is one of the 80% republicans that Reagan talked about and I could work with him. Cruz is the Gold Standard.
As last primary showed, we have a surprising amount of low-information Republican primary voters. It would be wise to make efforts in the next couple years to reach out to them and get them familiar with Cruz. :)
Paul spoke out against the drone strikes against admitted Al Queda terrorists in Yemen. He quieted that down when it wasn’t so popular and then did his filibuster on strictly U.S. territory strikes. Which was a silly issue to focus on in my opinion since it’s still entirely hypothetical. The next filibuster by anyone ought to be on the deficit, debt, and taxes, something that currently crushes us on a daily basis.
Some time ago, I sent a private message to the moderator asking that he/she/it gets banned. It's bad form to post and run. The surrender monkey who started this thread didn't have the courtesy to stick around and engage in discussion.
Being a newbie myself, I've learned that it's best to read and learn from the stalwarts here on Free Republic before starting a thread. And then, once having done so, have the courage to join with others in the subsequent conversation.
One thing seems pretty sure. Christie, JebBush or any other RINO sellouts will never get support as "the lesser of two evils"....those days are over.
I thank Paul for his stand on 0bamacare and his stand with the WII vets but in no way will he ever be president.
Oh I agree with you and I did that very thing years ago. This is a family place and we are all family... we may be a Jerry Springer kind of family at times... but we are family! Thanks for the post.
I agree they won't get popular support but that doesn't mean they won't get the nomination. I don't know anyone who voted for McLame and Romneycare during their respective primary "victories".
And I very much appreciate the great response which also gave me quite a chuckle with your Jerry Springer reference. Now...where are the chairs? :)
Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants... bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society. Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors. [but he’s not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
Rand Paul’s immigration speech
03.19.13 | Hon Sen Rand Paul (KY)
Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2998395/posts
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
[but he’s not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3055253/posts
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.
[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]
Here's the passage at issue:In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Paul’s Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]
That’s what I am talking about!!!!!!!!!
I think Rand is a lot more common sense on defense and foreign policy than Ron Paul. I don’t always agree with him, but I could certainly vote for him. I couldn’t ever vote for his dad.
I think he’s just wrong from a legal and historical view about the president needing a DOW to fight a war. Presidents have been fighting wars without prior approval of Congress since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. But I’ve also heard him repeatedly make the exception of an imminent threat.
Overall, I don’t think anyone in DC is willing to dump political correctness and acknowledge the threat posed by Islam. Nor are they realistic about any kind of a strategy to defeat it. Given that, I doubt any military victories we win there will do much good long term. The neo-con delusion of the middle east being inhabited by people just like us who want freedom and human rights was delusional and almost as dangerous as Obama’s blatantly pro-jihadist policy. I do give credit to Rand for pointing out in the recent Syria debate to point out that two million Christians in Syria are largely supporting Assad because the “rebels” want to kill them. I don’t recall anyone else making that point.
Let’s face it; the political squeamishness of the public and the politicians in both parties to even acknowledge the reality of Islam as a threat, makes it impossible to take the hard decisions that requires. For example, both parties have on unspoken agreement to dither around on Iran until they get nukes, at which point they will “reluctantly” agree that there’s nothing we can do about it. Given that, I think Rand is right that fighting long wars over there, with money borrowed from China, doesn’t make sense.
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.