Rand Paul

'Liberal Democrats for Rand Paul 2016' Might Actually Be a Thing

|

Paul

Sen. Rand Paul is no liberal. (He's no libertarian, either, if you ask certain libertarian purists.) But if he wins the Republican presidential nomination and the Democrats offer up Hillary Clinton, there's little question that Paul would be the better of the two on civil liberties, NSA spying, the war on drugs, criminal justice reform, and military non-interventionism.

Will honest liberals and Democrats recognize this? Or will anti-war leftists happily march to the beat of Hillary's war drums? That's the question.

Thee has been an encouraging development on that front, however: H.A. Goodman, a columnist for Salon and The Huffington Post, wrote a sobering and intellectually honest review of Paul and Clinton and boldly announced, "I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why."

The relevant section:

I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but in 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will be my choice for president. On issues that affect the long-term survival of 

this country; grandiose concerns like perpetual war that could send generations of Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East, domestic spying that could eventually lead to a police state, and numerous other topics, Rand Paul has shown that he bucks both the Republican and Democratic penchant for succumbing to public opinion, an overreaction to the terror threat, and a gross indifference to an egregious assault on our rights as citizens.

Yes, I'll have to concede some of my beliefs and roll the dice as to whether or not he'll flip-flop on issues, but Hillary Clinton and President Obama have changed their views on everything from gay marriage to marijuana legalization and Iraq, so I'm taking an educated gamble with Sen. Paul. Hillary Clinton alone has gone back and forth on enough issues to make the former Secretary of State a human version of Pong, so I'm not too worried about voting for Paul. Below are ten reasons this Democrat is voting for Rand Paul in 2016 and if my liberal membership card is revoked, I'll live with that; I'm not an ideologue like Sean Hannity, I'm an American.

Full thing here. Goodman cites Bill Maher's recent interview with Paul in which the liberal comedian praised many of the senator's positions and promised to consider supporting him.

"I think it's only a good thing for America when I'm not sure who I am going to vote for next time," said Maher at the conclusion of the interview.

Goodman and Maher deserve credit for recognizing that a libertarian Republican might be a better choice than an authoritarian Democrat. The coming showdown between Paul and Clinton will provide liberals plenty of opportunities to draw similar conclusions. We live in exciting times.

Watch the Maher segment below:

Advertisement

NEXT: Another Win Against Hair-Braiding Licensing in Washington State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. First Bill Maher and now this guy! If this is true it means that the Obamites did everyone a favor by destroying the Clinton machine.

  2. Will honest liberals and Democrats recognize this?

    Oh, Robby. Robby, Robby, Robby…

    1. Actually, I’m impressed with Maher and Chris Matthews. They have at least enough intellectual honesty to point out that Paul is better on some issues than the Dems. Obviously, they aren’t going to like his economics, but they aren’t burying their heads while screaming “EVUL RETHUGLICAN!” over and over.

      1. True that.

        1. The election is two years away. That’s a safe enough distance for them.

          1. True that too.

          2. Ya, I mean Rachel Maddow might pretend to like him for a few months again too. That won’t mean shit when it comes time for real team shillin’

      2. They are playing games with Paul and will trash Paul when the time comes. Maher and Matthews are hacks for the Democrat Establishment and not the kind of liberals Paul should be spending his time courting.

  3. Rand is a libertarian.

    And he will beat Hillary. Which as I’ve already said a hundred times, is why the GOP will never let him get the nomination. They love Hillary. Just ask John McCain.

    1. Rand is a libertarian.

      Not according to him.

      1. He said he’s a libertarian Republican. Rand’s just overplaying that hand right now so he can get the SoCon votes.

      2. This… Rand is not Libertarian, but he is the most libertarian republican in forever.

        I’m sure once his candidacy gets well off the ground, we’ll all find some issues with some of his policies, but “perfect is the enemy of good enough”.

        1. Yeah, I disagree with some of his views, but so what? I can’t think of a living politician I agreed with 85-90% of the time, ever.

          I’ll vote for him, and if I have the cash, I’ll donate.

    2. And he will beat Hillary

      Except Hillary isn’t getting the nomination. I’ve said it a thousand times before, Elizabeth Warren is getting it.

      All of this talk about voting for Rand over Hillary is a veiled threat. These liberals are telling the Democratic Party that they want someone other than Hillary. But the Dems know they can’t lose TEH WAR ON4 WIMMYNZ, ergo, Fauxcahauntus

      1. Fauxcahontas? Ha. But you’re right that Hillary might not get it. Her health is quite questionable.

      2. OK, so Rand will beat Warren.

      3. I’ve said it a thousand times before, Elizabeth Warren is getting it.

        AHAHAHAHAHAH
        nope.

  4. The cognitive dissonance will be mighty and terrible. They’ll desperately throw out the “But he’s a racist that opposes the Civil Rights Act!” even as he decries the institutional racism of the criminal justice system that Team Hillary doesn’t give two shits about.

    It’ll be fascinating.

    1. It’ll be fascinating, and then watching them all support whoever the Dem is anyway will be depressing. Partisans are utter fucking scum.

  5. I can just imagine the comments on the article at FluffPo. Someone please go read those and report back.

    I read some comments yesterday on FluffPo and I still haven’t fully recovered the lost brain cells.

    1. Conrad Robinson ? Ohio State
      All reasonable points, but I have to disagree.

      What about LGBT discrimination? I can’t imagine he would sign ENDA (he voted against if after all) & I would expect him to repeal Obama’s executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people.

      What will Rand Paul do to address global warming? The Republican party is all-but wholly owned by the Koch brothers at this point, a Rand Paul presidency could see the EPA gutted.

      Rand Paul has also said some truly horrible things about non-Christians. In the 113th Congress every Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, & and the 1 Hindu are all Democrats. I don’t want the Christian chauvinism of Bush back only clothed in the guise of libertarianism.

      So too, what about the increasing income inequality & the increasing lack of economic mobility in America? What will Rand Paul do about this? He’s opposed to the min wage after all.

      I agree with all of your points in favor of Paul (though I’m not sure about point 8) BUT I still think a Rand Paul presidency will end up hurting A LOT of people & will not move the nation in the progressive direction it needs to go.

      Lonnie Freeman ? Top Commenter ? Greenbrier High School
      Rand Paul wants to take Civil Rights back 100 years. Return to the Jim Crowe Days. The person that wrote this isnt a Liberal Democrat, he his an uninformed imposter.

      But it’s mostly reasonable discussion.

      1. Yeah, who cares if we’re droning Pakistani kids to death. We gotta raise that minimum wage.

      2. Yep, EDNA and global warming. Those are the top 2 voter issues right now.

        Rand Paul wants to take Civil Rights back 100 years. Return to the Jim Crowe Days. The person that wrote this isnt a Liberal Democrat, he his an uninformed imposter.

        That’s exactly what I was expecting. These people have their heads inside an echo chamber. They can’t possibly think outside of the box. Facts mean nothing, only talking points.

      3. “Rand Paul wants to take Civil Rights back 100 years. Return to the Jim Crowe Days.”

        What an ignorant twat. Paul along with some other politicos are trying to fix the issues that harms the black community TODAY like the drug war and mandatory sentencing. Seriously, the funny thing about the SJW’s is that they are always trying to fight the battles of yesterday instead of focusing on the battles in the present.

        As a black man I get a lot of shit for saying this but the battle for Civil Rights for black people have largely been won but yet the SJW and the race peddlers continue this archaic battle simply to remain relevent. Fuck them with a rusty screwdriver.

        1. I don’t think people who make a career out of political activism are immune to the same Luddite tendencies as others making a living. For a feminist the end of systemic inequality means the end of her livlihood. For a Al Sharpton, a genuine attitude of antipathy towards racists and real equality would diminish his standard of living, his power, his prestige and most importantly his relevance.

          If they weren’t fighting yesterdays battles, they’d be forced to earn a living and make a name for themselves like the rest of us.

      4. In the 113th Congress every Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, & and the 1 Hindu are all Democrats.

        Justin Amash is Arab, but apparently if one defines one’s terms narrowly enough, it appears Democrats can be the only party of inclusivity.

        1. Funny how that list leaves out the Republican black female Mormon — apparently that didn’t count either.

          1. It’s not my fault that vast majority of voters in the aforementioned groups don’t have the wherewithal to appreciate liberty.

      5. Conrad Robinson ? Ohio State

        *WORDS*

        For a bunch of people who claim that Christianity is the most terrible thing ever, Progressives have a serious desire for a messiah to take the LGBTWTFBBQLOLs into his loving embrace, heal the oceans, dry every tear, pay every hospital bill.

        1. Progs are a cult. A cult desires a strong messianic like leader, they must have one to follow. Hillary won’t be able to inspire them, I guess they will have to go with White Squaw.

          1. Yeah, I don’t think the Hildabeast will even get the nomination. Benghazi and businesses don’t create jobs. Hope she does , cuz Rand will crush her.

            1. He’ll crush Warren even worse. She’s fucking nuts. Outside of the hardcore leftist progs, once people see her and hear her talking, they’ll run away. They don’t even want Obama now, let alone Obama on steroids.

              1. I would LOVE a Warren v Paul debate. My god, she manages to make individual words into logical fallacies.

      6. I don’t want the Christian chauvinism of Bush back only clothed in the guise of libertarianism.

        HA HA! The list of fucking Bush administration advisors reads like the guest list to my bar mitzvah.

        Wolfowitz
        Perle
        Abrams
        Cohen
        Nuland
        Kagan
        Glazer

        What a fucking moron!

    2. just did.. i think the feeling is jamais vu.

  6. Bill Maher makes me want to kill, so I can’t bring myself to click the video.

    Getting Bill Maher’s support could make me reconsider my “Rand Love”.

  7. (He’s no libertarian, either, if you ask certain libertarian purists.)

    I’m not even “libertarian”, much less a “purist”….but:

    Again, I disagree he’s “a libertarian”. He’s more libertarian than some people on some issues, and I’d vote for him in a New York minute over most anyone else TEAM RED (or TEAM BLUE) could throw in the ring…

    But. He’s TEAM RED, he’s got some positions that are less than libertarian….and that’s OK.

    Just please stop calling him “a libertarian”. Cause he’s not. He’s a TEAM RED politico who’s way better than most.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    /pedant-like

    1. Also, this:

      Juice|11.17.14 @ 4:02PM|#
      Rand is a libertarian.
      Not according to him.

      What Juice said.

      1. Exactly.

        I’m a Kentuckian. He’s my Senator. I even voted for him in 2010. But come 2016, it’s principles over “good enough.”

        That’s just me though…

  8. Also – fuck Bill Maher no matter what he says about anything at any time. Fuck him. Always.

      1. I wish Tyler Durden would ask me which celebrity I’d want to fight cause I’d knock Bill Maher in his stupid face any day of the week.

  9. To see Maddow have a public mental breakdown if he gets the GOP nomination and even possibly win the White House would be worth a million bucks.

    A lot of my liberal friends (the true faith ones) hate this guy because they quite can’t pin his beliefs all while watching him embarrass their liberal political icons by working against the drug war and the NSA overeach. For years the Democrats have given lipservice when it came to reforming our justice and domestic intelligence apparatus but Paul is actually doing whatever he can to do away with the abuses.

    1. What’s going to be even worse than that is seeing Chrissy Poo get a tingle up his leg over Rand. I think he’s already getting a tingle, it’s just that he hasn’t come out about it quite yet.

      1. That tingle..?

        Just another mini-stroke. That’s why he drools.

      2. The best was I was with some friends and they were talking about dronings and the NSA shit. Without any hesitation I pointed out to them that they voted for all of that shit in 2012 simply so they can score some free birth control. That remark didn’t get a good reception as expected.

        1. Call Obama Captain Murderdrone while you’re at it. They love that.

        2. Nice. Did any yelling occur or just uncomfortable silence and dithering?

          1. They thought I was being too simplistic and partisan even though I used to rip Bush apart for doing the same shit. It’s sad because these people walk around like they have prinicples when in fact they would throw those away in a second once their guy is in power. It’s sad because these people actually vote.

    2. They can’t think outside of their echo chamber box. To them, Rand can’t possibly exist, he doesn’t fit the narrative.

  10. “Goodman and Maher deserve credit for recognizing that a libertarian Republican might be a better choice than an authoritarian Democrat.”

    From where I come from, that’s called a “no brainer.”

  11. Of course they will happily vote Clinton if she picks a certain former senator from Wisconsin as running mate.

    1. So, we’re going to have basically a two trick tag team, war on wiminz and businesses don’t create jobs. That sounds like a winner.

    2. Shrillary would never pick Feingold as her running mate. He voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, TARP, Obama’s first Omnibus Budget, the War in Iraq, and he wasn’t terrible on gun rights.

      Sure he’s responsible for McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance, but he was far too close to being principled, and friendly towards liberty for her being comfortable with him. I predict she’ll pick a soul-less popular white male centrist from the south, wait-a-minute……Clinton/Clinton 2016! It’ll make you scream.

  12. Hillary will hammer him on AGW, income inequality, and LGBT which are all fake issues. NSA surveillance, war on terriers, sentencing reform, drug legalization, et al won’t get any traction.

    1. One thing I can tell you, Rand will not back down. Hillary had better hope they nominate Christie or Jeb or some other spineless weasel, because Rand will come out swinging, he’s already demonstrated that he plans to do so.

      1. I wouldn’t have voted for Romney anyway but it was very sad that he allowed the DNC and progressives to control the narritive. He refused to even fight but it’s probably because he lacked principles anyway.

        1. I remember the first debate. I wonder if Obama even prepared. Any half-decent candidate would have had him on the ropes, then knocked him out. Romney was such a lightweight.

        2. Did Romney even run a campaign? I remember literally nothing of his campaign. It was pathetic.

          1. I remember his tour bus in my town that I put a Ron Paul bumper sticker on.

    2. She will try, but pushing AGW will backfire spectacularly because that has zero appeal to undecideds compared to the economy and war.

      The media can’t ignore civil liberties and drug war reform if Paul, as the GOP nominee, keeps talking about it.

      The thing everyone underestimates about Paul is how reasonable he sounds in person. If you watch him speak you clearly get the impression he’s an intelligent, authentic guy with a sense of humor.

      Everything about Hillary is fake and manufactured, even her ostensible supporters concede this as they fantasize about Lizzie Warren or Bernie Sanders “rescuing” the Democratic party.

      1. Also, Paul could counter by saying we need to start building emission free nuclear power plants.

        1. …ah those suck right now. Nuclear is a subsidy whore, and it’s not because of regulations. I hope ISMR and Lockhead Martin’s fusion reactors will change that.

          1. You really don’t think nuclear plants are prohibitively expensive because of massive regulatory ratcheting? And a big reason why we are still building pressurized water reactors is because of this regulatory ratcheting making it a ridiculous proposition to build prototype reactors.

            1. It really is a subsidy whore. If private insurers aren’t willing to even write the liability, that tells you something about the efficacy and masks the true costs of the product.

              1. And the reason why a nuclear accident can balloon to such unbelievable costs? Ultraconservative limits on radiation doses to the public. And then there is this:

                It is often said by the anti-nuclearists that the commercial nuclear energy industry “can’t get insurance” against the risks of nuclear or radiological accidents, or that it is “uninsurable”. This is simply garbage, a myth, a load of baloney that gets exclaimed backwards and forwards between the anti-nuclearists, without any of them ever bothering to actually check the facts or do the research. It’s simply a meme, one of many nonsense pseudo-fact memes that persist in the community of people who are really just devout believers that nuclear energy is bad.

                The Price-Anderson Act in the United States is often bought up by anti-nuclear activists as some sort of damning evidence of preferential government treatment for nuclear energy, but it’s actually quite the opposite ? it’s legislation which imposes exceptional demands on nuclear energy above and beyond any other industry; demands which are completely out of proportion to the reality of the demonstrably low risk of nuclear energy, especially relative to other energy sources.

                1. Price-Anderson Act

                  I’m not against nuclear power at all. It seems to be the most promising of any energy form. However, abolish the damn insurance subsidies and you’ll see the nuclear become safer and cheaper. Subsidies like Price-Anderson necessarily induce producers to be ‘less safe’ than they otherwise would be with private money on the line. Tax payers will pay to insure their operations whether they like it or not. Private investors and shareholders with their own fortunes on the line have entirely different incentives.

                  1. FS, I agree with this with one exception. In no way does Price-Anderson push the nuclear industry to be more callous with safety. The industry is required to pool insure itself by over $10 billion in the event of an accident. Beyond that is when the government will come in to help.

                    The entire nuclear regulatory environment has caused nuclear power costs to balloon (even though it can still compete closely with coal and NG). To brush that aside, like cytotoxic did, is to display complete ignorance to how the industry has evolved.

                    1. In no way does Price-Anderson push the nuclear industry to be more callous with safety.

                      So in no way does a moral hazard perverse incentives regarding safety and quality? Being ‘insured’ by tax payers is fundamentally different than being insured by voluntarily funded insurance carriers.

                      Suppose there were private insurers underwriting the nuclear business; the insurance company fundamentally has the choice of whether or not to underwrite those risks, and being creatures of choice, they impose certain demands about safety and loss prevention before they’ll write it. The shareholders of the insurer have an immutable interest in making a profit or at least not suffering loss, this incentivizes caution by company officers.

                      With a tax funded ‘insurer’, the shareholders are ‘investing’ against their will. They have shit for oversight and shit for incentives beyond “hey make some power and please don’t kill me if I live nearby”. Does the government ‘insurer’ receive less funding when it fails exercise caution? Does it even feel the sting of massive losses? Because private firms do.

                      The industry is required to pool insure itself by over $10 billion in the event of an accident. Beyond that is when the government will come in to help.

                      This isn’t innovation. Private firms have similar arrangements and call them things like re-insurance, co-insurance, deductible and/or self-insurance.

                2. France has lots of nuclear energy and more reasonable standards and it costs just as much.

                  The USG has waived liabilities for nuclear and even given 100% backing to loans for nuke plants. Even under those conditions banks aren’t interested. It’s. Not. The. Regulations.

                  The claim being made by some ? that the loan guarantees are necessary to jump-start investor interest in new nuclear power plant construction ? is not quite correct. Even these lavish loan guarantees aren’t enough to do that. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy dated July 2, 2007, six of Wall Street’s s then-largest investment banks ? Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley ? informed the administration that, contrary to the government’s expectations, anything short of a 100 percent unconditional guarantee would be insufficient to induce private lending.

                  http://www.cato.org/blog/radio…..te-welfare

    3. Not sure she will be able to.

      Does anyone really care about AGW anymore? When the economy was strong, people could afford to pretend it was a big deal. Now?

      Income inequality? That would work, but the country has been run by her party for the last six years (almost eight by the time of the election). During that time, what’s happened to income inequality?

      LGBT? Bluntly, what issues do they have left? At this point SSM is pretty much a fait accompli.

      1. Yeah, they did this already. It failed in the midterms. It didn’t work in 2012 either-Obo only got re-elected because people who voted for McCain didn’t show up for Romney.

    4. Agw? That is a bigger lower than gun control.

  13. Love to believe it. But I don’t at least in any numbers. And our enemies get a hot on whether we are at war or not so anyone who thinks electing Paul will bring peace is in for a big disappointment.

  14. NSA surveillance, war on terriers, sentencing reform, drug legalization, et al won’t get any traction.

    All of these things mainly affect brown people in a negative manner and give the State (Blessed Be The Name) more power, therefore the Progressives don’t care about them too much.

    1. What is wrong with terriers? They are cute little dogs. Why would anyone want to make war on them?

      1. Don’t question the decisions of the police, peasant.

      2. Plus terriers are a potential source of energy- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDa0z0gEvI4

  15. I was reluctant to watch that interview but I am glad I did. WOW is Rand good at speaking. The only time he was a little off was when he got tipsy on global warming (‘we’ve got to find a middle ground’). He needs to stake out a firm position on that and know it well.

    1. He’s an outstanding communicator, much better than his dad. I thought he did fine on the global warming question since he called out alarmism while insisting on cooperation and letting capitalism develop alternative fuels.

      It’s the sort of thing independents will love since it’s the opposite of the “anti-science” label Democrats will hysterically try to smear Paul and Republicans with.

      1. He needs to attack subsidized environmentalism and be unafraid of attacking nonsense like ‘the Statue of Liberty will drown’. He should read up some Reason.

  16. The coming showdown between Paul and Clinton will provide liberals plenty of opportunities to draw similar conclusions.

    What if neither of the two senators gets a nomination? Although it is 10x more likely that Rand would not succeed in his nomination than Clinton in hers.

    1. Then libertarians vote l and watch fauxchontus win

      1. Lizzie Warren elected as POTUS will ensure that the Democrats get demolished so badly in the next midterms that nothing much she tries to do will matter. It will make 2014 look like the Democrats won. They elect this loon as their leader, I’m not sure if they will ever recover from it. She’ll make Obama look reasonable.

      2. Surely Senator Warren is a harder sell to the American electorate than Clinton?

        Although another only slightly less liberal Massachusetts senator came within a respectable showing in 2004 and he was no “clintonian campaigner”.

  17. Eh, they’ll start banging the drums about supreme court nominees and any liberals off the reservation will come running back in fear.

    They’ll view 4 years of nonsense as a small price to pay for preventing 20 or 30 or however many years of supreme court losses.

    1. Getting Janice Brown on the Court would be nice. Kosinski’s good, but has said too many wacky things to get past the nominating process.

  18. I wonder if Obama’s two terms were really a deep, dark plot by those evil Koch’s to turn people away from trusting the government and therefore to pave the way for the libertarian moment and the election of Rand Paula. I mean, come on, I expected Obama to be a shitty president, but he blew all of those expectations away. It’s almost like he is trying to destroy any faith Americans had in their government. If that was his real mission, then mission accomplished.

    The fact that people who claim to have never voted for a member of team red are seriously considering Paul for POTUS demonstrates clearly how bad a job Obama has done. Those Kochs are truly evil geniuses.

    1. Damn it. My wife’s name is Paula and muscle memory must have kicked in.

    2. We’re lucky. LBJ and FDR were evil and politically capable. They did far more harm than Obama ever can. He’s just so incompetent.

      1. Obama didn’t do anything that can’t be fixed, but he sure did undermine the average Joe’s reluctant faith in government. That’s the beauty of the Koch genius.

    3. I just made a wild speculation this morning that Obama is a secret GOP plant to destroy the Democratic party. Or he’s just insane.

  19. Is there any likelihood that Senator Rand makes a decision to sit out the 2016 race?

    It appears that he would have to give up his Senate seat to run; what if he decides that continuing in the upper house best serves the cause of liberty?

    1. Sub in Amash? Or Rohrabacher?

      1. Amash cannot sub in for Rand. As much as I like Amash and would vote for him, he’s not Rand, he does not have the recognition, Ron Paul’s legacy, or the fund raising machine that Rand will have behind him. Currently, there’s no substitute for Rand.

        1. Massie? Same problem I guess. Rohrabacher is probably too old. Man he should have been the GOP nom in 2000.

          1. Even more so same problem.

            Rand has too much going for him, all the recognition he’s getting.

  20. 2016 is gonna be Scott Walker vs Elizabet Warren.

    1. That’s a depressing thought.

      1. You can do a lot worse than Walker.

        1. Yes, we could nominate an Objectivist. Walker would likely be much better than that. I wouldn’t have to be scared for the world at least.

          1. Shut up cunt. You’re a puny pissant next to any Objectivist on any day.

            1. Did I strike a nerve?

        2. Like Warren, for example.

          1. Indeed

        3. Avid drug warrior. Thank you, no.

          1. Citation?

            1. Start here:

              http://www.jsonline.com/news/s…..37361.html

              1. That’s bad, but not ‘avid drug warrior’ bad. You are outrunning the evidence.

                1. I gave you a start, it’s up to you to finish.

  21. my classmate’s step-mother makes $76 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay check was $21931 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit the website….

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

  22. I have to tell you, as much as everyone is laughing about it, Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, and other team blue cheerleaders taking Rand seriously and even saying they like him is a disaster in the making for Democrats in 2016. Hillary had better start getting really worried now and working with her buds in the GOP to take this guy out, before he takes her out.

  23. WTF? The video I got was the one about polygraphs, and the only question I had was, “Are those real?”

  24. I dont think Jack Sammy So So is going to like that.

    http://www.Safe-Anon.tk

  25. The Paper of Record puts a stop to this nonsense. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11……html?_r=0

  26. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..82204.html

    Paul is throwing away the very things that give him appeal to Democrats as he gets deeper in bed with the Republican Establishment.

    He is putting his ego above principles. Its one thing to argue for your principles in a moderate tone. Its another to go against them like he is doing on NSA and with his support for the intervention in the Middle East.

  27. I would consider myself to a liberal democrat with sympathy for the libertarian cause. I’m for women’s rights, gay marriage, race equality, ending the drug war, national healthcare and all of the usual liberal pursuits. I also believe in checks and balances, which is where the Pauls have it right – I actually contributed $100 to Ron Paul’s campaign back in 2012, but ended up voting for Obama.

    A corporation is not a person, it is an entity you can place your blame on when you screw up and then ask for a bailout. That killed Romney for me even before the 47% comment.

    It’s sad how alike we are in what we really want – the freedom to do whatever you want to do, as long as you hurt no one else – with the caveat that you can’t take advantage of people, thus the rules and regulations of the Democrats (ala payday loan lenders, high rate cards, etc).

  28. I would consider myself to a liberal democrat with sympathy for the libertarian cause. I’m for women’s rights, gay marriage, race equality, ending the drug war, national healthcare and all of the usual liberal pursuits. I also believe in checks and balances, which is where the Pauls have it right – I actually contributed $100 to Ron Paul’s campaign back in 2012, but ended up voting for Obama.

    A corporation is not a person, it is an entity you can place your blame on when you screw up and then ask for a bailout. That killed Romney for me even before the 47% comment.

    It’s sad how alike we are in what we really want – the freedom to do whatever you want to do, as long as you hurt no one else – with the caveat that you can’t take advantage of people, thus the rules and regulations of the Democrats (ala payday loan lenders, high rate cards, etc).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.