Does Rand Paul have a shot at winning, or is he an electoral liability like his father?

Discussion in 'Politics Discussion' started by chrisanswer, Sep 10, 2015.

Page 3 of 3
    Oct 1, 2015
  1. Kicker774

    Kicker774 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2015
    Posts:
    60
    Likes Received:
    1
    > You'll never, ever hear a Democrat talk seriously about cutting any of the (83% of non-defense) govt spending these days.

    Perhaps hidden under the guise of government assistance programs? Mentioned under the same breath as medicare or social security programs.

    As for defense, perhaps if we cut back defense spending we wouldn't be so eager to go off and start picking fights (Or pay others to pick fights for us)

    So as usual both sides suck at this game.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2016
    Kicker774, Oct 1, 2015
    Kicker774, Oct 1, 2015
    #21
    2. Oct 1, 2015
  2. gmckee1985

    gmckee1985 Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Sep 2014
    Posts:
    548
    Likes Received:
    2
    Saw a recent national poll that had Rand at 1%. What's funny is that he was seen to be a much more of a mainstream libertarian than his father, but he's doing far worse in the polls. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the quality of the Republican field is a lot better than it was in 2012 and 2008, so there's a lot more competition. There are even rumblings that he will drop out of the race soon. If you would have told me a couple of months ago Rand Paul and Scott Walker would be the first major candidates to get out of the race, I would have told you that you're nuts. Politics is an unpredictable game.
     
    gmckee1985, Oct 1, 2015
    gmckee1985, Oct 1, 2015
    #22
    3. Oct 3, 2015
  3. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    We already have far too much "government assistance programs". That's the main problem - far too many entitlements.

    Our country was not created to be a nation where 50% of the population made all of the money, and the government takes most of it away so that the other 50% can live off of those taxes without contributing anything.

    The federal government was meant to provide a national defense and an "invisible hand" to keep the population safe from foreign invaders, criminals, and fraudsters. It's a very small % of the population who cannot care for themselves and who need to be taken care of by the govt permanently.

    Do you propose we cut defense down to nothing? Should we have no military, no weapons, etc?

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2016
    JR Ewing, Oct 3, 2015
    JR Ewing, Oct 3, 2015
    #23
    4. Oct 3, 2015
  4. mooray

    mooray Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2015
    Posts:
    110
    Likes Received:
    2
    I certainly don't think so. Not when Donald Trump is manipulating the media to get 24/7 coverage like he owns the whole system. It is too early to tell but one thing I know for sure is that it is going to be a tough race.
     
    mooray, Oct 3, 2015
    mooray, Oct 3, 2015
    #24
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page