[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 10,343 comments
- 406,348 views
- Status
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Where Ron got in trouble is he, like former senator Tom Colburn from Oklahoma, wouldn't vote on a spending bill. At least in Colburn's case, he did so without asking a critical question, "what is congress going to cut out of the budget first?"
I can't say I agree with him on everything, but I feel he is the only genuinely principled person to yet submit a exploratory campaign. I like his dad better, as crazy as that old man is.
- 3,948
- Sturgis, MI
- GTP_ty00123
Rand Paul is officially a candidate.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Keef
Premium
- 25,104
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
God I love America. Bet on all the things!
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
With Rand Paul running there might be an extra Senate seat up for grabs. Kentucky state law says that a candidate cannot appear on a ballot twice. Republicans in Kentucky are trying to get that changed by switching the primary to a caucus, but that still leaves a big question regarding eth general election.
Our Secretary of State Alison Grimes said in December that she would take him to court if he tried to run for both offices. But she is up for reelection this year, so it could all depend on who is the SoS in 2016. If the Republicans manage to switch their primary to a caucus and avoid the ballot issue until November then a legal challenge wouldn't likely be resolved in time to make a difference.
Paul would be better waiting another four years to run without legal issues at play, but this looks like it is a year that Republicans have some advantage and he is trying to strike while the iron is hot.
All that said, no third parties? I feel it is very important to remind people that there is more than two, most likely horrible options.
No matter what, I truly suggest that all voters look deeper than just Republicans or Democrats. There are more than two names on the ballot every time. Really look at them. If you haven't been happy with eth direction of this country in the past however long then consider actually trying to make a change happen.
If everyone who talked about "the lesser of two evils" decided to vote for what they saw as a non-evil you would be free of the same problems we have had for decades. Keep in mind, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Less poison is still poison.
Here is a list of possible third party candidates:
Put in quotes due to length.
Our Secretary of State Alison Grimes said in December that she would take him to court if he tried to run for both offices. But she is up for reelection this year, so it could all depend on who is the SoS in 2016. If the Republicans manage to switch their primary to a caucus and avoid the ballot issue until November then a legal challenge wouldn't likely be resolved in time to make a difference.
Paul would be better waiting another four years to run without legal issues at play, but this looks like it is a year that Republicans have some advantage and he is trying to strike while the iron is hot.
All that said, no third parties? I feel it is very important to remind people that there is more than two, most likely horrible options.
No matter what, I truly suggest that all voters look deeper than just Republicans or Democrats. There are more than two names on the ballot every time. Really look at them. If you haven't been happy with eth direction of this country in the past however long then consider actually trying to make a change happen.
If everyone who talked about "the lesser of two evils" decided to vote for what they saw as a non-evil you would be free of the same problems we have had for decades. Keep in mind, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Less poison is still poison.
Here is a list of possible third party candidates:
Put in quotes due to length.
- 2,260
- N. Jessamine, KY
- JMoney-689
- Woodside689
I need to change my registration at some point this year. I originally registered as a Democrat so I could vote for the weaker primary candidates, making it easier for the Republican to win the main election. Of course now that the Democrats really only have one candidate, it seems pretty pointless. I think Rand Paul has what it takes to beat Hillary, so I'm all for him.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 3,948
- Sturgis, MI
- GTP_ty00123
To win the primary or the general election? If the former, I'd definitely get in on that action.
- 2,270
- United States
- G_ASHER
I think the biggest problem with all of this is that due to the electoral process, the votes of the 34% minority weigh more than those of the 35% majority. It's a sad state of affairs when the most electable candidate is preferred over the one that can get the job done.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
I've modified the OP to confirm Rand as a candidate. Until further notice, Rand's Senate Seat is considered open per Kentucky law.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Breaking News: John McCain will run for a sixth term in the Senate from Arizona. He will ultimately be one of the oldest members in the Senate come election day at age 80.
- 2,260
- N. Jessamine, KY
- JMoney-689
- Woodside689
Yeah but then I can't vote for Rand (or whoever if I change my mind) in the primaries. I don't really mind the fundraising calls, being an independent just seems pointless because then you can't vote for anyone in the primaries.
Anyway, I noticed something familiar about Rand Paul's campaign logo today.
- 2,260
- N. Jessamine, KY
- JMoney-689
- Woodside689
Not in the primary elections; the elections to determine each party's nominee for the main election. If I'm registered as a Republican, then I could vote for any of the Republican candidates but not Hillary or any of the Democrats until the main election. You can vote for whoever you want in the main elections in November though.
- 38,930
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Some states let Indies vote in primaries. Some states, like Florida, do not.
All of those third party candidates are a bunch of screwballs. I'd rather not vote, but if I do vote, it will be for the guy that is most likely to lower or eliminate taxes, most likely to balance the budget by cutting spending, and least likely to start WW3.
Rand Paul best fits that bill for me.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
It really boils down to party affiliation. Democrats generally will not allow independents to vote in their primaries, while Republicans will. As a result, a lot of democrats will jump ship to vote in the Republican primary to vote someone who the dems can easily beat in the general election. Hence, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
States also vary. My friend in Indiana says he can pick the party he votes for.
The party and/or media decide for you anyway. I knew Mitt had it won last time after just the first few states. Plus, at the convention the delegates don't have to vote with the election results.
Daytona's mimicing the Liberty Torch?
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Actually to clear that up:
There are your rank and file delegates, who when they go to the party's national convention, they are separated by state at the main floor. Now, when the state in question has voted for a candidate, and later withdraws, he has the power to "give" those delegates to an "endorsed" candidate, even if that candidate later loses to the eventual nominee. In other words, the regular delegates can be traded like currency for political favors if that candidate happened to win the presidency. An apt comparison can be found in Casino Royale (the film) where Bond barters with Felix over LeChiffre's arrest for getting back into the poker game.
Then there are the Super-Delegates, which to be honest, are party members who hold public office at either the state or federal level. A vote from them is weighted more than a delegate vote, and is largely the cause of securing Obama's path to the nomination. Also, they are not bound by the results of their state's primary/caucus.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Rand Paul interviewed by Savannah Guthrie. He won't take any bs in interviews and I like that. She tries to talk over him, he shuts her down. She editorializes to try and put him on the defensive and he slaps her down again. Savannah had a really forced smile at the end so don't expect Mr. Paul to be interviewed with her again
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...-guthrie-over-interview-about-foreign-policy/
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...-guthrie-over-interview-about-foreign-policy/
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
As a journalist she screwed up. A commentator will pull the "I have a list of fifty things I will quickly name off and I want a one word answer from you on this" approach.Rand Paul interviewed by Savannah Guthrie. He won't take any bs in interviews and I like that. She tries to talk over him, he shuts her down. She editorializes to try and put him on the defensive and he slaps her down again. Savannah had a really forced smile at the end so don't expect Mr. Paul to be interviewed with her again
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...-guthrie-over-interview-about-foreign-policy/
A journalist would say, "In 2007 you are quoted as saying, 'yadda, yadda, yadda,, but today your position appears to be XYZ. Some voters might interpret that as you changing positions. How would you respond to them?"
She is a journalist, she is supposed to bring forward facts and speak on behalf of the viewers and allow him to answer to the viewers. He is not trying to convince her to vote for him. He is trying to convince the potentially millions of viewers at home. Trying to lump every issue together in one question and expecting a one-word answer is trying to get a gotcha moment.
Rand could have handled that more diplomatically, but his approach will appeal to his base. He called her out on what she was doing. He should be careful though, because by doing this he will either turn media against him completely or will get them to save their editorializing and attack pieces for when he is not able to defend himself. He will then be countering this kind of commentary through his own campaign's media releases, which may or may not get reported on, and wind up being so sanitized by communications staff that it sounds hollow or fake.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
The media is already against him, outside of Fox and a handful of reporters at other networks that still have some integrity. This "gotcha" kind of strategy is the way most mainstream American media seems to work, they look for the hook, the defect, the inconsistency, the mistake and then run with it. Of course that only applies to someone on the other side, when someone is on their side it's softball all the way, unless the scandal or mistake is so big it can't reasonably be avoided. I'm sure there are exceptions but that's the way most of it appears to work in my estimation.
Rand always comes across this way to me, but I like it. I'd rather someone just not put up with bs and call it when he/she sees it, it's a really refeshing change in my eyes, and if more politicians on both sides did the same thing, the media would smarten up and begin to do a better job.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
By against him I mean going from, "We acknowledge you as a serious candidate, but don't support you," to acting as if he isn't even there, the way they did Ron Paul. It was so blatant that The Daily Show did a piece on it.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest Posts
-
Gran Turismo 7 January 2025 Update Prediction & Discussion Thread- Latest: Flexinho127
-
-
-
-
