Rand Paul

Politico Makes Strong Case for Rand Paul To Be on Main Stage at GOP Debate

Late-breaking poll shows libertarianish senator in fifth place in Iowa.

|

As Brian Doherty reported here, Rand Paul has said he won't appear at the kids' table on Thursday's GOP debate among presidential candidates.

Now, Politico is reporting that Paul's exclusion, based on criteria announced by the debate's host, Fox Business, might have happened due to the late publication of a poll.

Fox Business said it would include the top six finishers in the five most recent national polls and the top five finishers in polls restricted to Iowa and New Hampshire. Paul placed seventh in all those categories and so was relegated (along with Carly Fiorina) to the undercard.

But a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll in Iowa released Wednesday morning has Paul at 5 percent — alone in fifth place. In fact, if the Des Moines Register poll is included on the list of the five most recent polls, it gets Paul into a tie for fifth place with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 4.2 percent. That, presumably, would get Paul onto the main stage.

It's true that the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll was released 36 hours after Fox Business' deadline for inclusion. But it was conducted Jan. 7-10 — entirely before the qualification deadline. Other polls from American Research Group (Jan. 6-10) and Quinnipiac University (Jan. 5-10) conducted through Sunday were released on Monday afternoon (Jan. 11) and made it into Fox Business' average.

Quite simply: Had the Register and Bloomberg released their poll, which was completed Sunday, on Monday at 5:59 p.m. instead of Wednesday at 6 a.m., Paul would likely have qualified for the main stage.

Read the whole thing here.

Paul only got on the main stage of last GOP debate, hosted by CNN, by the skin of his teeth and his campaign woes continue.

From a libertarian perspective, I'd like to see him on either the main stage or the undercard stage at this week's debate. It's rare to hear anyone in either major party talk about foreign policy from a non-interventionist angle and the Kentucky senator has been a leading voice for criminal justice reform, reducing government spending, and other topics near and dear to my heart.

Critics of what Matt Welch and I have dubbed "The Libertarian Moment" have been taking delight in the failure of Paul's campaign to catch fire (and wrongly conflating his failure with a general rejection by Americans of libertarian values of social tolerance and fiscal responsibility). Paul has always been at his best at the moments when he sounds his most libertarian, and he's been doing that more and more as his days seem to be numbered in the 2016 race.

So here's hoping he gets another shot on Thursday, or walks back his refusal to mix it up on the undercard. The more libertarian rhetoric out there, the better.

NEXT: No, the credit Card Act is not a free lunch

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. Don’t worry, HM, if you ever go missing, we’ll know where to look for you.

      1. The question we’re still stumped on is why we would look for him.

        1. He’s our comrade, we have to look for him. Plus I’ve heard that the Thai hookers are really hot.

          1. A quest! There will be carousing and weed and Thai hookers, and at the end of it we save HM. What’s not to love?

            1. I volunteer for this mission. Someone has to make a sacrifice. I get this feeling the bus will be crowded.

              1. Sorry, HM, we went to save you, but WE GOT HIGH!

              2. Your first stop should be the twerking conventions.

                1. They have conventions?!?

      2. Up to his eyeballs in cobra whiskey and Thai ladyboy hookers?

        1. Well, maybe not his EYE balls…

  1. Rand is at his most libertarian by forsaking the undercard debate. What could be more libertarian than a futile act of petty defiance against a system that will ultimately crush him?

    1. What better way to explain freedom of association?

    2. I must be in the minority thinking that he did the right thing. There’s nothing positive for Rand in going to the kid’s table. It will just give the GOP establishment more of what they want. Look over there, there’s the non-serious candidates, the silly libertarians and such, but we’re going to be nice and listen to them anyway, sort of like to pretend to listen to the children.

      1. But Fiorina graduated from the kids’ table to the grownups’, just as I predicted. Then got relegated again, which I hadn’t. So why not play, when it’s the only game in town?

    3. What could be more libertarian than a futile act of petty defiance against a system that will ultimately crush him?

      Profiting from it somehow?

    4. What could be more libertarian than a futile act of petty defiance against a system that will ultimately crush him?

      Forcing Cambodian slave orphans to work your diamond mine and polish your monocles while having ass sex with Mexican hookers and smoking weed?

  2. Where’s my hat tip?

    Even CNN realized that Rand should be on the stage. Fuck you Foxnew, double fuck you, you ignorant neocons.

    1. It’s confusing too, they don’t seem to actually want trump. Why have a panel of talking heads that all sounds so similar when you could have some variety

      1. It’s Fox, they want us all to believe the GOP base is just different degrees of neocon. We all want to bomb Iran and hassle potheads, it’s just a question of if we use nukes and should we execute the dope smoking hippies.

        1. +1,000 monotone colored rabid hotties

          1. Hey, you just titled my ambient electronica album. Thanks!

        2. It’s like they’re selling the exact same model of car. “This one is red. This one over here is black, and has a sunroof!”

        3. Why is this Fox’s fault? They published these criteria a month and a half ago. Did they somehow conspire with Bloomberg to get the poll released late?

  3. Critics of what Matt Welch and I have dubbed “The Libertarian Moment” have been taking delight in the failure of Paul’s campaign to catch fire

    So, is this “the libertarian moment” you talk about at your betlway cosmo parties, Nick? lololololololololololol. Jacket joke.

  4. “social tolerance and fiscal responsibility”

    You keep using those terms as if there’s consensus on their meaning.

    I gave some links recently where *Michael Bloomberg* was described by many people as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

    There are people who genuinely believe that “social tolerance” means forcing your definition of “tolerance” on others.

    Allowing other people to be intolerant means you’re not tolerant enough.

    1. Bloomberg is so socially liberal that he wants to burn you at the stake for having a oraange drank that’s too big.

      1. A man of vision, ahead of his time.

        You know damn well that Top. Men. are working on this. Hell, it’s probably already in Obamacare and nobody got to that page yet.

    2. That’s the problem, the conflation of “socially liberal” w “socially tolerant”. The so-libs aren’t tolerant, they’re just on the “liberal” side of the culture war. Same w Giuliani, because he was in the gay pride parade; Chris-Chris gets pegged that way too.

  5. I think it’s foolish to skip the undercard. Fiorina made it to the main debate on the strength of her performance there and Paul likely won’t get shafted for time and opportunities like he normally does in the main debate.

    1. That’s an excellent point. He could get some positive press from speaking in a way he couldn’t on the main stage.

    2. Yeah, it’s a huge mistake. It’s an opportunity to get ideas out there and it shouldn’t be difficult when there’s a relatively small number of people and most of them are total also rans.

    3. She also made it back down to the undercard.

      1. What the hell is wrong with voters that those two are out and Jeb, Christie, and Kasich are still in?!

        Just noticed below someone pointing out that everyone left is the exact same candidate. Yup.

        1. Except Trump and Cruz. They’re all establishmentarians or conservative populists. There’s virtually no disagreement on FP now other than Trump’s periodic criticism of unnecessary intervention.

        2. Kasich was supposed to be the penny pincher, right? Jeb comes out surprisingly libertarian via Project Vote Smart’s voter match. And Christie’s standing in for that governor with the K in his name from NY.

      2. Rand Paul won’t win so he might as well get his ideas out there as much as possible in any forum provided to him.

    4. Right, and part of the reason he’s polling so low is probably because he hasn’t had much time to explain his positions in the debates. He’d be the tallest midget in the undercard debate and could get his message across to some new people and spark some conversation the way that Fiorina did.

    5. That was the first undercard debate, though, when there was some curiosity about the 17-man circus and storylines weren’t established. This is 3 weeks before the primary, and the number of people who care enough about politics to tune into a “minor candidates debate” and, simultaneously, care little enough about politics to have not heard Rand Paul’s message yet is pretty freaking small.

  6. I know Iowa made some changes…can Paul finish 5th but actually win the state like his Dad did?

    1. Ron finished 3rd but got 22 of 28 delegates.

    2. can Paul finish 5th but actually win the state like his Dad did?

      NO

      The national committee has forced rules onto the Iowa Republican Party to ensure that the distribution of delegates matches the results of the straw poll.

      I have no idea how this can be achieved given the way the county, district, and state conventions were run last time. But the national party wants to prevent anyone like Ron Paul from ever repeating Ron’s results.

      1. Isnt the whole point of a caucus to ignore the straw poll?

        1. yes

          The system was set up so that a small cadre of party regulars could show up and control the outcome by filtering out the casual participants at the caucuses. So in practice, a slightly larger cadre of dedicated Paulites could show up and overwhelm the party regulars and take over all the state level offices and all the delegates not handed out to the sitting governor and senator.

          The national party said “never again”.

        2. Maybe the former beauty contest will now wind up electing national delegates proportionally something like the way party-list proportional rep works in some countries, while the caucuses will elect people to party offices.

  7. Critics of what Matt Welch and I have dubbed “The Libertarian Moment” have been taking delight in the failure of Paul’s campaign to catch fire (and wrongly conflating his failure with a general rejection by Americans of libertarian values of social tolerance and fiscal responsibility).

    Delight probably not. Cynical jokes about your naivity while crying into a tub of ice scream, yes.

    1. ice scream

      lol.

      1. That’s eye scream.

  8. Is New Jersey Democrat Chris Christie in the main event? If so, Fox Biz just lost a customer. Their reverse mortgage and step-in bathtub sponsors will have to reach me another way.

    1. Yes, and I stopped watching Fox a long time ago. They are just as annoying as MSNBC.

    2. William Devane is disappointed in you.

      1. I like how the slimeball and backstabber in like every movie from the 70’s is asking us to trust him.

        1. And I’m supposed to buy life insurance from crazy Lloyd Braun? Right…

          1. He green-lit Lost, but I’m not sure whether he knew about its hidden plot. http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/teach if you want to know.

        2. Or, the 70s greatest chant leader

          Consecutive days making references Bad News Bears means that I have regained both of my virginities.

          1. Billy bob Thornton really ruined that franchise. They should have just cleaned up the second one with cgi and used that as the remake, there can’t be more than like 20 people who have seen it.

            1. The original Bad News Bears is the best sports movie that has ever or will ever be made.

                1. I’m trying to listen to the fucking song.

      2. And Fred Thompson is dead.

  9. Critics of what Matt Welch and I have dubbed “The Libertarian Moment” have been taking delight

    Sorry to burst your bubble, Nick, but no one is taking ‘delight’ in the fact that you guys are delusional. It’s just that down here on earth, we see things in an objective light, that you cosmos way up there in the pie sky can’t see for all the rainbows and flying unicorns.

    1. You’re just jealous because their mind-altering drugs are stronger than yours.

    2. I don’t think Nick is delusional. He’s simply rooting for his team.

      That said, If Rand Paul had the votes, he’d be at the adult table and not sitting at the kid table.

      1. That said, If Rand Paul had the votes, he’d be at the adult table and not sitting at the kid table.

        This is the problem. Recently Rand has polled ahead of both Bush and Christie at times, and Kasich. Fox did this intentionally. What they have basically done is ended the debate. All of the other candidates are the same person, outside of Trump. So now it’s Trump vs the GOP establishment until they get rid of Trump. Then, it’s 2008 and 2012 all over again. You get the same person again in a different suit.

        1. You know, for the Record, I’m a big fan of John Kasich. I think he’s the most reasonable candidate and I’m a liberal.

          Do you really think FOX News is anti-Libertarian? I know they are anti-liberal.

          1. Yes, I really think they are anti-libertarian. They don’t actually support a free market. They don’t advocate for the end of SS, much less letting someone young like me to opt out of paying into it. And to kick the only person who’s even close to a libertarian is pretty pointed.

            1. Someone as young as you can’t opt out of paying into it.

              You are not really paying into it. It is a pyramid in which the young pay for the old today in trust that the future old (today’s young) will receive a living wage/health benefits paid for by the future young people.

              There’s no way to Opt-out without abandoning the current old people to poverty. I know that libertarians are careless, heartless, and generally callous to this fact. But thank goodness, you people are outnumbered.

              1. My parents are old. They wouldnt be in poverty if SS went away. Why? They lived below their means and saved their entire lives.

                1. And imagine how much richer they eould be if they had invested their SS payments in an index fund.

                  Want to turn SS into a mandatory IRA? Insert sld, but its a step in the right direction. But its a ponzi scheme now.

              2. So they take from me. To pay old people. So I can’t use that money to save for myself. For when I’m old.
                This screams of a ponzie system.
                When it was introduced, it was sold as a retirement fund. For individuals.
                You might want to look into SS as well, they are not obligated at all to pay out what they take. Ever. The only legal obligation is that they buy treasury bonds with the money they withold from paychecks. There is no promise of payments, or what they must pay. Just that they buy bonds.

              3. There’s no way to Opt-out without abandoning the current old people to poverty.

                The “current old people” are the richest segment of society if you don’t cherry-pick the handful of “billionaires” and they have as a group seen the greatest growth in real net worth over the last 40 years.

                Saying that they would be suddenly impoverished if we started to phase out younger payers into Social Security is patent nonsense.

                But I do like the part where “liberal” now apparently means “you must be forced to pay so that we can keep bribing our voting blocs”.

                1. The majority of seniors are not as rich as you say.

                  Yes, many of them lived the high-life of America and are doing great.

                  The majority depend on medicare and social security.

              4. i find it interesting that you explicitly spell out how it is a ponzi scheme, yet still conclude that anyone who want to see it changed must be heartless….. can’t possibly be that we would prefer a retirement plan that actually looks like a retirement plan, instead of a shell game that ignores the realities of lower birth rates (less young people in the future to pay) and longer life spans (more old people to pay for).

                anyone who is dead set against reforming social security has either not done the math, or just wants to watch the world burn.

                1. we need to reform it. But it should remain a Pyramid Scheme in which the working pay for the disabled/retired/widows/kids/etc.

                  It should pay no more than a living wage.

                  Anyone that wants to save more towards retirement is free to do so.

              5. So looking for ways to not point guns at unarmed people is callous and heartless? Where do the looters find these lame infiltrators?

          2. You sound like Alice.

            Of course FOX News is anti-libertarian. They are an arm of the Republican establishment.

            Just like every tentacle of the liberal establishment (NYT, HuffPo, etc) will endorse Hillary over Bern. You can count on it.

            1. They employ Judge Nap, give a forum to Stossel and Kennedy (and of course employed Welch), but they love their populism, it is just a different brand of populism than the NYT’s. Patriotic, pro-business, pro-second amendment, etc.

              1. Yeah I’m just being cranky and cynical. But at the end of the day you know which way they’ll go.

              2. But “pro-business” to them just means they’re in favor of the idea of biz, not actual biz, except for whichever ones are politically favored for other reasons.

            2. I am Alice Bowie.

              But the Bowie Part just recently died…so I’m giving him an RIP.

      2. What is delusional are the claims that most people who are not on the two big teams are on his team, when there is plenty of evidence that is not true.

      3. If Rand Paul had in-the-field supporters instead of people who only carp at a teevee nework he might have some voters.

    3. Donald Trump is the front runner and Rand Paul is out of the main debate, but yeah, that libertarian moment is right around the corner.

  10. Although I’m no hard-core Cato-libertarian, I’m a big fan of libertarians. Within the entire political spectrum, the Libertarians seem to be the most intelligent and educated. However, my criticism of libertarians is that they are too callous and only focus on economic liberty at the cost of practically everything else.

    That said, the reason Rand Paul and libertarians don’t whether well is that they side with Republicans.
    As we can see from the GOP primary circus, Donald Trump is the official spokesman and Chief Carnival Barker for the Stupid, Racist, Callous, Angry, and (did I mention) stupid people within the republican party. And, from the looks of Trumps lead, these morons make up for over 40% of the Republican Party.

    Libertarians are far too intellectual for these Cavemen. And Libertarians are too heartless and callous for the Democrats.

    This is why Rand Paul is sitting at the kids table.

    1. However, my criticism of libertarians is that they are too callous and only focus on economic liberty at the cost of practically everything else.

      Can’t decide between ‘lurk more’ or ‘fuck off Tulpa’.

      1. either way he should probably lurk more.

      2. Hey man, if a liberal wants to talk reasonably, no reason to be an asshole.

        Most leftists who show up here are of the Joe and Tony variety.

        1. I agree. I’m curious though if it’s actually Alice Bowie. We all know Alice. The typing style and grammatical structure seems a little too good for Alice though. Although the view on libetarians is a match.

        2. It’s Alice Bowie, the reasonable facade will degenerate into nonsense and/or racism eventually.

      3. It’s Alice, and I think (s)he deserves a serious answer, so here’s my take:

        Most of that “everything else” you’re so concerned about directly follows from economic liberty or is right there in the Constitution if we bothered to follow it.

        1. That was my initial thought. If it is, it’s one of Alice’s more articulate posts.

    2. How goes it, Alice?

        1. I knew it was you. So you haven’t learned anything about libertarians yet? You’ve been around here long enough. What’s up with that, I mean what does it take?

          1. Reading the occasional article would be a start, but Alice can’t be bothered.

            1. To be fair, Alice is not very smart, and rational presentations of facts and whatnot fly right past his addled head.

    3. And Libertarians are too heartless and callous for the Democrats.

      Okay.

    4. Economic freedom is personal freedom. It’s the core of any other right we have.

    5. libertarians is that they are too callous and only focus on economic liberty at the cost of practically everything else

      That one sentence tells me that you either know very little about libertarians, or you’re trolling. So which is it?

      1. You know me, this is my favorite comment site on the entire Internet. I guess I’m somewhat of a Troll.
        But I do know a lot about libertarians.

        When I was in High School back in 1982, a libertarian Organization came to my school and our principal picked a few of us to go for a weekend-trip to Tuxedo New York. They were called “Partnership for Free Enterprise”. They gave us a “TNSTAAFL” t-shirts. I was almost interested but I like certain socialist components in Modern Day America like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, etc. None of which I’ve ever used and hope not to. But it is good to know that if I lose my nest-egg I can at least live in a one-room home with healthcare and food.

        1. Tuxedo Park, which is in Tuxedo, is a gated community, and since outsiders are not allowed behind it’s gates, I assume it is where the Koch brothers’ masters live.

          You should have went! You could have been polishing monocles!

          1. I now live 10 minutes north of Tuxedo Park.

            David Koch lives in NYC in a rather fancy Penthouse as I’ve heard.
            Don’t know where his brother lives.

            Tuxedo Park is nice but it’s aged over the years. There are newer and far more desirable places to live around here that are much cheaper and not a pretentious.

        2. You know me, this is my favorite comment site on the entire Internet

          Okay, Alice. Then why don’t you try actually reading the articles and not just the comments? If you only read the comments, I mean a lot of it is sarcasm. You apparently know VERY little about libertarians. It’s not all about wit, sarcasm, and cynicism. It’s real. And I know of no other group of people political wise who have more genuine empathy towards other people. The democrats have plenty of fake empathy used solely to score political points. Whether you agree with our solutions is another thing. Our solutions come from reason and logic, not emotion. Emotions do not lead to workable solutions.

          1. I read practically every article here. I even contribute to the yearly fund raiser that have at REASON.COm.

          2. And, I know the established Dems/Reps are a bunch of lying crooks.

            There are many solutions to lives problems. Empathy and emotions should play a part. That is simply my opinion.

            Look, I agree with school vouchers and don’t want public hospitals. My opinion on these changed here among other things.

        3. With socialism, once it’s progressed far enough, you WILL be living in a one-room home with healthcare (we’ll decide if this biological resource needs to live more or not) and food (yummy rations of government gruel) along with all the other serfs, whether you need to or not.

        4. Re: Alice’s Bowel,

          When I was in High School back in 1982[…]

          Ha! You’re older than me. I started High School in 1983.

          But it is good to know that if I lose my nest-egg I can at least live in a one-room home with healthcare and food.

          You have a better chance of obtaining those things for sure if you murder someone and are given 20-to-life, than waiting for Social Security and Medicare to be available when you retire.

          1. I’m 50.

            And yes, going to prison will guarantee three-hots and a cot. But I’d rather be able to at least walk to the park and live poorer.

            1. Re: Alice Bowels,

              I’m 50.

              I’m not.

              And yes, going to prison will guarantee three-hots and a cot. But I’d rather be able to at least walk to the park and live poorer.

              I would rather save for my retirement and live my twilight years in the woods inside a heavily-concealed bunker than having to deal with retirees waiting in huge lines in front of quiet ATMs for the government to pay them “their” money.

    6. You know what is heartless and callous? Kelo. A 39.6% tax rate. Disarming victims.

      1. ‘The state’ would have sufficed.

      2. Years or decades in prison for doing drugs, public sector unions leeching all the money out of you and providing shit in return, Top. Men. putting up so many barriers to being successful that some just give up and wallow in handouts.

        We could go on.

        1. Oh, but democrats don’t embrace that, they just have to go along because mean old republicans are making them. They had a super majority in power and they couldn’t fix any of those things, they didn’t even try, all they did was fuck up the healthcare system for 300 million people.

          1. I say this every other day. On a host of topics my left friends vocalize. You had nothing in the way. Nothing.

    7. Here’s some words of wisdom for you, Alice. You should ponder this. Libertarians are the only political group that give a fuck about you as an individual, are the only group that will fight for your civil rights for purely unbiased reasons, and will fight to protect you from all enemies both foreign and domestic. And in general, strive to leave you the hell alone and let you live your life as you see fit. All the others just use you to further their elitist agendas, and they will take those rights they say they are winning from you, just as easily as they gave them. You want to know the truth. Well, there it is whether you accept it or not.

      1. It’s why I’m a big fan of libertarians, personally. I do have some progressive views and I’m a big fan of Public Pensions (Social Security) and Medicare for All as safety nets.

        I don’t believe in Public Unions. I also don’t believe that any Public employee should be retiring at $100,000 at the tax payers expense. I believe that all citizens should receive a Public Pension (Citizen’s wage or Living wage) at some age like 60 or 65. Today, cops get $80,000 at 45…that’s silly.

        But it’s nice to know you guys care.

        1. I’m a big fan of Public Pensions (Social Security) and Medicare for All as safety nets

          How is it a pension if you haven’t done the work to justify it? The old-age part of Social Security requires you to have spent at least 35 years working and making Social Security payments. Saying that everybody is “owed” that money regardless of having done anything for it makes no sense. Get off your ass and go to work. At the very least, young healthy people do not deserve any kind of “safety net”.

          And who is going to pay for this “safety net” into perpetuity? If everyone is owed it by virtue of their existence, why would they work? And if nobody is working, where does the tax money come from to fund their lifestyle?

          1. I think the concept of a CITIZEN’s WAGE is being considered by many libertarians.

        2. Observe that the safety nets are gotten by having goons point service pistols at people. Is the safety on the gun part of the net?

      2. If I were Alice, I’d ask back, how could they possibly give a fuck about me as an individual, when they don’t even know me? Adherents to an ideology are a group, so as such they could be helpful only to other groups, or their own, based on some characteristic they can nail them down to.

    8. Libertarians are so “callous and heartless” they actually want to let working middle class people keep all of the money they work for, and so “callous and heartless” they want to stop wealthy retirees from retiring on the backs of young, poor, working class families.

    9. Donald Trump even likes libertarians… thinks we have a lota good ideas! Odd that he’s the front-runner after saying that on-camera.

  11. “Critics of what Matt Welch and I have dubbed “The Libertarian Moment” have been taking delight in the failure of Paul’s campaign to catch fire (and wrongly conflating his failure with a general rejection by Americans of libertarian values of social tolerance and fiscal responsibility).”

    LOL, “the fact that the most libertarian candidate is getting his ass whooped in favor of a right-wing populist who wants to start a trade war with China means absolutely nothing. Sure this is an actual case where we can measure the revealed preferences of voters, but let me cherry pick this poll that doesn’t mean what I’m claiming in order to pretend I wasn’t wrong about the US trending libertarian.”

    1. It sounds like he’s being petulant. “You guys don’t think the libertarian moment is happening?!? Well you’re just a bunch of meanie establishment Republicans who don’t even want Rand Paul to win!” It’s just sad.

      1. Aren’t we Yokeltarians? I mean I know we’re not real scientists like journalists.

      2. Hard to see the libertarian moment when los federales spend 10 billion dollars plus per day, el presidente unilaterally initiates military action, surveillance abuses that should bring federal charges get rubber-stamped by Congress, and the few states that legalize even a mild drug pile onerous taxes on it.

    2. What about the revealed preferences that Nick actually references?

  12. Quite simply: Had the Register and Bloomberg released their poll, which was completed Sunday, on Monday at 5:59 p.m. instead of Wednesday at 6 a.m., Paul would likely have qualified for the main stage.

    Feature, not bug. /RNC

    Maybe that’s why they waited to release the results. *adjusts tin foil hat*

    1. Make no mistake it was intentional.

  13. The kids’ table at GOP debates has opened a treasure crest of information about what our politicians think our breeding habits.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVuf3iySvd8

    tldr? Rick Santorum is confused and Lindsay Graham pulls an Angela Merkel rabbit out of his ass.

    1. Lindsay Graham pulls an Angela Merkel rabbit out of his ass.

      Kinky… – Hedey Lamar

      1. Lindsay Graham pulls [object] out of his ass

        Oh, is it Wednesday already?

  14. Ron Paul is an antiabortion religious fanatic. He gets what he deserves, and even daddy Paul is backing a prohibitionist birth forcer. Hillary bluntly stated relegalizing weed n such “wouldn’t” work in her crystallnacht ball. So drooling socialist Bernie replaces scowling prohibitionist. Our agenda is pushing the envelope and the LP hasn’t even gotten started yet!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.