Right Wing 2016 Ticket. Vote Here Today. Explain Why.

[Robo]

Even though Rand is running under Republican, he's an extremeist Libertarian. If he can keep his conversations about what needs to happen today instead of what he believes should happen, he will win.

In other words, you think Rand Paul should lie and become just another phony politician, right? How should he answer when the media confronts him with his “extreme libertarianism?”

Isn’t “extreme libertarianism” the same thing as “extreme loyalty” to our Constitution? Why is there a problem with that?

I could vote for a Rand Paul/Gary Johnson ticket or a Gary Johnson/Rand Paul ticket. I could vote for a Paul/Paul ticket. I wouldn’t vote for any of the other phony bastards on your list and I’d never vote for a Democrat on a bet.

 

[evince]

Johnson at least actually tries to accept facts.

why would he pick someone like rand?

that guy is a fact free zone

 

[Robo]

Have you ever considered those with the (R) beside their name are dog shit? You know, the ones who not only couldn't care less but did everything possible to prevent the Dems from helping the 45,000 people who die every year due to a lack of medical insurance. You know, the ones who were against unemployment extensions not giving a damn if their fellow citizens went hungry and cold over the winter. You know, the dog shit folks.

Have you ever considered the fact that there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the vote bribing Democrats in Congress to bribe the vote with unconstitutional socialist programs?

“The powers NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT to the States, are RESERVED to THE STATES respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.” ( Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

 

[evince]

you no constitutional expert that is for sure

 

[Timshel]

In other words, you think Rand Paul should lie and become just another phony politician, right? How should he answer when the media confronts him with his “extreme libertarianism?”

Isn’t “extreme libertarianism” the same thing as “extreme loyalty” to our Constitution? Why is there a problem with that?

I could vote for a Rand Paul/Gary Johnson ticket or a Gary Johnson/Rand Paul ticket. I could vote for a Paul/Paul ticket. I wouldn’t vote for any of the other phony bastards on your list and I’d never vote for a Democrat on a bet.

Rand should be a politician that can win.

If Rand goes off on libertopian nonsense he is going to get in hot water. There is no point in it anyway as the country is not ready to even consider most of those points much less have their laws changed to achieve those goals. If he focuses on what is possible then he might stand some chance.

This country is open to moderate and consistent libertarianism. It's not ready to completely dissolve the social safety net. I don't think there is much support for socially conservative, war mongering fake libertarians that only talk about cutting welfare for the poor, like Paul Ryan either.

Not that I actually think Rand could win, but his best bet would be to avoid extreme libertarian points.

 

[evince]

Rand Paul is a clown.


He could never win a national election

 

[christiefan915]

Rana and 007 easily critisize the thread but won't say who they think is a better candidate..

But Right Wingers never suprise me.

Rana's not a right-winger.

 

[evince]

Moderate independents aren't who cost Republicans the election of 2016. The conservative base didn't turn out for the moderate Romney.

When I see the old triple response from you on something I've said, it registers as "DING - DING - DING!" I must've struck GOLD!

I actually like Huckabee more than Santorum, and I might like Mitch Daniels more than Huck!

But here's the thing, no matter who I like or who the GOP nominates, we already know what the LEFT WING pinheads are going to say, right? I mean, we're all adult enough here to admit that we're partisan and our personal opinions are not going to suddenly change, so we already know and understand, whoever has the (R) beside their name is going to be treated like dog shit by the left, and that's just a given.

Dixie thank you for working so very hard to kill the republican party

 

[Anti-Party]

1)Rand Paul - From the seed of Ron Paul. Nope.

2)Paul Ryan - Too soon for failed VP win.. More likely in '20 or '24

3)Marco Rubio - Possible, but can he, constitutionally?

4)Chris Christie - Not a chance.

5)Jeb Bush - Not a chance.

6)Condoleezza Rice Not a chance.

I think you've overlooked some very serious possibilities...

1. Mike Huckabee- He was the pre-campaign 'favorite' in almost every poll, but declined to run. A populist conservative who appeals to social conservatives, but with an integrity the left has found hard to attack effectively. Huck was largely responsible for turning the Chick-fil-a fiasco on its left-wing ear, by organizing a grass roots counter-protest which became headline news across America because of the response. Yep, they're going to attack him because he believes in Jesus and reads the Bible. What else is new?

2. Mitch Daniels- He also declined to run, but might be inclined to bring us his message in 2016. I personally see him as a real possibility, because he is more of a reasonable conservative voice. I would at least like to see how far he would go, I think the man has a reasonable conservative perspective that a lot of conservatives could identify with, and this would resonate in debates and whatnot.

3. Rick Santorum- Why would you fail to list Santorum? If not for Romney, he would have probably been the GOP nominee, right? I think the #2 guy is worthy of a spot on your list, but no? Santorum has a large following with social conservatives as well as Tea Party conservatives, and did remarkably well considering the amount they were outspent.

I'm sure there are plenty others who I can't think of right now, there are a lot of really good conservatives I could support for the presidency, and I think most Americans could as well. But we've got 4 years before this happens, so it's kind of pointless to even be thinking about it right now. Whoever emerges from the Conservative side, is going to have to OWN the moment. If the GOP comes to the table with some weak moderate elitist bullcrap, like trying to run Jeb Bush or Rick Perry... you may see a viable third party emerge.

I see now I failed to post the link
http://www.policymic.com/articles/18789/2016-presidential-candidates-5-possible-republican-presidential-candidates

I of course added Rand Paul. You say the Left will attack Huckabee for being Christian "as they always do" but I've never seen any attacks on Christianity. Defining Freedom of Religion is implortant. If you think that means freedom to force Christianity on everyone you are wrong. It means freedom to practice your religion whatever it may be.

Only Right Wing Christians believe we should use laws to prevent gays from getting married. The bible teaches free will, not forced religion. Of course if your perspective is wrong and you think they are talking about creating a law that would allow gays to get married that would change everything, but that's not the case. The old law is in place for prevention which judges gays and guess what the bible says about being judgemental. "Do not judge or be judge" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Everyone sins, some people just sin differently. What makes their sins worse than yours?

Rick Santorum is a joke. He was a good Christian man but he couldn't stop talking about war. Everytime he would start winning me over he would talk about playing world police in other countries and ruin it for me.

 

[Anti-Party]

Rana is not right wing. Did you ever answer why you were banned from that other forum?

Did someone ask me why I was banned from the other forum? I repeatedly called former President Bush bad names and I was probably too abrasive with some, ban.

 

[cawacko]

My vote was actually really difficult. Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Rand Paul represent themself well and aren't scared to go onto Left Wing media to challenge them. All are strong. Rubio is probably the best talker. Christie has a great chance to win because he showed bi-partisanship when America is sick of the gridlock. Rand Paul is a bit extreme still but I believe Americans will realize we have come to the point where we need extreme.

Even though Rand is running under Republican, he's an extremeist Libertarian. If he can keep his conversations about what needs to happen today instead of what he believes should happen, he will win.

Out of curiousity what is the difference a Libertarian and an extememist Libertarian?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You say the Left will attack Huckabee for being Christian "as they always do" but I've never seen any attacks on Christianity. Defining Freedom of Religion is implortant. If you think that means freedom to force Christianity on everyone you are wrong. It means freedom to practice your religion whatever it may be.

Only Right Wing Christians believe we should use laws to prevent gays from getting married. The bible teaches free will, not forced religion. Of course if your perspective is wrong and you think they are talking about creating a law that would allow gays to get married that would change everything, but that's not the case. The old law is in place for prevention which judges gays and guess what the bible says about being judgemental. "Do not judge or be judge" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Everyone sins, some people just sin differently. What makes their sins worse than yours?

You've never seen any attacks on Christianity? Were you in hole or under a rock when they started the mess about Palin's church?

As for you attempting to parse the Bible in order to support your pro-gay agenda, I'm not playing that game. I'm not a Christian, but I don't know of any Christians who are trying to impose their will on the rest of us, that would appear to be the pro-gay activists like YOU!

 

[Robo]

you no constitutional expert that is for sure

So that’s it? That’s your argument? Have you any rational argument with how I interpret the Constitution or are your arguments just fact free/fact-less biased comments?

 

[Robo]

Out of curiousity what is the difference a Libertarian and an extememist Libertarian?

Lots of folks claim to be libertarians even idiot leftist like Bill Maher and Geraldo Rivera who are about as “libertarian” as Fidel Castro. You can always tell the real “extremist” libertarian by their loyalty to our Constitution and how they justify and prove their arguments by constitutional scripture, articles and amendments and their consistent classical liberalism as defined in the Bill Of Rights. Extremist libertarians mind their own business instead of everybody else’s business. Extremist libertarians believe they know better how to spend their own money than the government does. Extremist libertarians believe homosexuals have the same right to freely make marriage contracts with any other agreeable adult they want free from government busybodies and bigoted government and right-wing phony religionist who think God died and left them in charge of everybody’s moral standards. Extremist libertarians believe that the Constitution guarantees that the people be left free to decide for themselves what to put into their “OWN” bodies and it’s none of governments business. Extremist libertarians believe that only the Congress can declare wars and not Presidents like the Constitution mandates. Extremist libertarians believe in limited federal government and maximum individual liberty.

 

[apple0154]

In other words, you think Rand Paul should lie and become just another phony politician, right? How should he answer when the media confronts him with his “extreme libertarianism?”

Isn’t “extreme libertarianism” the same thing as “extreme loyalty” to our Constitution? Why is there a problem with that?

I could vote for a Rand Paul/Gary Johnson ticket or a Gary Johnson/Rand Paul ticket. I could vote for a Paul/Paul ticket. I wouldn’t vote for any of the other phony bastards on your list and I’d never vote for a Democrat on a bet.

Libertarian: 1.a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2.a person who maintains the doctrine of free will

Liberty: freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Does this really sound like libertarianism: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America?

It starts with "we" and continues with "the common defence" (in other words the defence of more than one individual or just oneself) and concludes with "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", again, (our posterity) which means including others. And then there's the "form a more perfect Union".

Union:
1. the act of uniting two or more things.
2. the state of being united.
3. something formed by uniting two or more things; combination.
4. a number of persons, states, etc., joined or associated together for some common purpose:

Now let’s go back to the definition of liberty. “freedom from….obligation”. “Power or right of doing… according to choice.”

When we look at the Preamble (It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.) we see the very first words are “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,…” (union: joined or associated together for some common purpose) makes it clear there is an obligation, that individual choice is replaced by group choice as we, the people, have joined together.

So, regarding your question, “Isn’t “extreme libertarianism” the same thing as “extreme loyalty” to our Constitution”, the answer is an unequivocal “No.” It is anti-constitutional. It is diametrically opposed to what the Founding Fathers' intentions were regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

NOTE: Definitions “libertarian, liberty and union” taken from “dictionary.com”.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I wouldn't vote for any of them

 

[apple0154]

Have you ever considered the fact that there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the vote bribing Democrats in Congress to bribe the vote with unconstitutional socialist programs?

“The powers NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT to the States, are RESERVED to THE STATES respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.” ( Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

And THE PEOPLE voted twice for a President who made it crystal clear he intended to implement some form of government medical care. During Obama's first term an argument, although extremely weak, could have been made the President was overstepping his authority, considering THE PEOPLE re-elected him it's clear he is implementing programs the people desire. If the people have the power, which they do, and the President is carrying out their wishes I fail to see anything unconstitutional about it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And THE PEOPLE voted twice for a President who made it crystal clear he intended to implement some form of government medical care. During Obama's first term an argument, although extremely weak, could have been made the President was overstepping his authority, considering THE PEOPLE re-elected him it's clear he is implementing programs the people desire. If the people have the power, which they do, and the President is carrying out their wishes I fail to see anything unconstitutional about it.

just because 'the people' vote in a president - once or twice - does not make the president's actions constitutional. we have three branches of government here in the US apple. the judicial branch is a check on the other two branches.

 

[Robo]

So, regarding your question, “Isn’t “extreme libertarianism” the same thing as “extreme loyalty” to our Constitution”, the answer is an unequivocal “No.” It is anti-constitutional. It is diametrically opposed to what the Founding Fathers' intentions were regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who ya are!

So, in your world libertarians are what, “anti-social?” Is that what you’re attempting to insinuate? What about the truth actually being that libertarians are every bit as socially loyal and often even more so than the average folk. The difference between libertarians and the left is the left promotes government mandated, (gun in the back), cohesion type socialism and it’s extortion of other people’s money to bribe the vote, while libertarianism is all about “VOLUNTARY” social activities such as volunteering for your community, it’s fire department, it’s ambulance it’s community watch and things like FREELY financially supporting private charities.

“Diametrically opposed to the Constitution?” Yeah right! That’s why libertarians can always take chapter and verse, article sand amendment from the Constitution to prove their arguments and positions, but the left hardly even ever mentions the Constitution and most leftist hate it.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

All LEFTIST federally mandated socialist programs are unconstitutional !!!

 

[Robo]

And THE PEOPLE voted twice for a President who made it crystal clear he intended to implement some form of government medical care. During Obama's first term an argument, although extremely weak, could have been made the President was overstepping his authority, considering THE PEOPLE re-elected him it's clear he is implementing programs the people desire. If the people have the power, which they do, and the President is carrying out their wishes I fail to see anything unconstitutional about it.

That’s likely because you see nothing in the Constitution. You likely haven’t even looked at it since high-school, if then.

So, in lefty world, all THE PEOPLE have to do is elect and reelect a President to two terms and that overrides the Constitution, right? I love lefty arguments, they’re sooooo absurd! Could you please direct me to the article, section or amendment in our Constitution that authorizes that overriding of our Constitution please?

Must you be informed again that the United States was founded on the principles of being a “Constitutional Republic” and not a mob rule democracy?