"I'm a liberal democrat-voting for Rand Paul-here's why."

Linkage for reference

1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush
2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as "one of the foremost critics of the government's domestic spying program."
3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Cory Booker toreform the criminal justice system
4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret" in 2016
5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent "a few years" in prison
6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I'm not making this up
7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another
8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others
9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul
10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation

Introductions and explanations can be found in the link at the top.

I find this very compelling. What do you all think?

(EDIT: I am not the liberal democrat, I'm quoting the article's author and using it in the title to entice you fine folks to jump on into this thread. My opinion is that these reasons are compelling because they are interesting. They go against the grain by choosing to entertain the idea of a Rand Paul presidency. HOW FASCINATING. :D)

I also think he's the best choice out of the lot we currently have.

• He is against gay marriage.
• He is against legalizing or decriminalizing marihuana (and other drugs).
• He is against killing babies.

He has some good positions and some bad positions. Hopefully he can influence the primary to his side on some of the issues.

I don't think the government should be regulating your first and third bullet point. And I do think the gov should find a way to legalize drugs.

• The first issue will be taken out of his hands by the Supreme Court, still it is disturbing.
• The 2nd issue is more muddied since democrats aren't that much better and I think Paul would be at least bad as Obama on this issue perhaps a little better.
• The Congress and the Supreme Court would buck him on anything radical on these but he could nominate Supreme Court justices that might change that.

What a freak. He sure as hell not getting my vote now.

I think the absolute worst two candidates we have available are Hillary and Jeb. No way no how do I want either of those people in the White House.

I would also extend that to Ted Cruz

Exactly.

He would be interesting if he was the nominee, basically he would alienate some parts of the Republican coalition while also appealing to some parts of the Democratic coalition, so it would interesting to see whether he would alienate or attract more voters.

I don't think he'll win the primary though.

he is as dumb as a box of rocks but what can you do?

most are just privileged rich kids who have floated through life on daddys money.

i guess in a field of turds we could do worse.

Can't you just put a goldfish in the White House and make it do loops when adressing the Nation?
The results will be the same.

Based on what exactly? Neither of them have really laid out their platform for the election or what they intend to do if they are elected. It's too early to say anyone is the "absolute worst".

As for Rand Paul, the guy's rhetoric doesn't match his voting record, so take all of that in the OP with a HUGE grain of salt. Ever since he came out running for President he's spent most of his time flip flopping on his past positions and the other time was spent bashing Hillary Clinton. He strikes me as an opportunist caught up between appealing to "Libertarians" and the average primary voter and will ultimately end up pissing off both factions. He also has the absolute WORST economic ideas for the country as evidenced by his absurd budgets.

I don't think he would be able to pull enough democrats to offset the Republican votes he would lose.

The pro-life, anti gay marriage, anti vaccination, and anti gun control in any form positions make it impossible for me to support him. He also said some cray cray stuff about things like the Civil Rights Act and strip mining back before he was a presidential candidate.

hey ot, rand paul can do for america what he has done for kentucky.

how's that for a campaign tag line?

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2015/02/12/kentucky-is-the-nations-worst-state-for-animal-welfare/

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/blog/morning_call/2014/12/kentucky-is-ranked-as-the-fifth-worst-run-state.html

http://www.connectednation.org/recent-news/kentuckys-internet-speed-price-among-worst-america

Kentucky residents are among the least likely to have a bachelor’s degree or high school diploma. Only 83.1% of adults have a high school education, and 7% of adults have not completed the ninth grade — both among the worst rates in the U.S. Residents without a high school education often struggle to earn a living — 32.1% live in poverty — more than twice the 15.5% poverty rate for adults who have finished high school. Despite the state’s many problems, Kentucky residents aged 16 to 19 are more likely to be either in school or to have graduated high school than their peers nationwide, at 95.7% versus 95.1% across the U.S.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/magazine/whats-the-matter-with-eastern-kentucky.html?_r=0

http://kyhealthnews.blogspot.com/2013/10/kentucky-ranks-high-in-prescription-abuse.html

Weak. A lot of that stuff Rand Paul has no control over them.

Try again.

let's keep in mind many of these Republican candidates have very calculatingly plaid a centrist position and soon will need to start throwing red meat at their base in which case all the right wing crazy will come out, even for Rand Paul

I'm an independant who says **** parties, let people be elected on their own merits sans labels.

I've yet to see a candidate that I actually like. We'll see what happens as the race tightens and candidates begin to put themselves out there more and offer legitimate ideas. It's highly unlikely that Rand Paul actually gets the nomination given the conservative base isn't to set on him as president. We'll see what happens. Whether I vote for Hilary Clinton or the Republican Candidate in this upcoming election is still out for debate.

What's his stance on discrimination against atheists, gays, and other minorities?

I'm voting for the president that I feel is doing the best in trying to maintain civil liberties.

it's way to fucking soon to be talking about this shit.. wake me up in december

A lot of those are dubious and/or arguably irrelevant, especially since he has been running away from a number of traditional Libertarian positions. More importantly, though, his stances on monetary policy are very concerning.

As others have said, salt grains salt grains Salt Grains

He denies Global warming.

Does he? I think he believes climate change is real.

So far these up and coming elections definitely sounds like one that I don't want to bother voting/participating in at all.

Is this even a competition? Hilary Clinton has essentially already won at this point. She is well known and generally favored by the majority.

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have already made themselves out to be complete idiots, and the election hasn't even started.

He's more in the jury's out camp. He doesn't flat out deny it's existence but he also doesn't support or actively pursue legislation that would limit carbon emissions to help the environment and is uncertain of the causes of warming. The only GOP potential candidate that has explicitly expressed an acknowledgement of belief in the scientific consensus of global warming is Chris Christie

Yeah, we don't need another bush or another clinton in the white house. Unfortunately I don't see anyone else actually getting the nomination from ether party. :(

This man speaks truth.

Are you sure he's against marijuana? I know that there was a prominent republican that sided with Corey Booker - a prominent democrat - about decriminalizing marijuana. They were saying too many people get stuck in jail and then labelled for rest of their lives. It was either Rand Paul or Paul Ryan, but I think it was Rand Paul.

He's the spawn of a racist father. I don't think I can ever trust him. Hilary on the other hand... I have to support and vote for her to prove I am not a misogynist, just like I voted for the current president to prove I'm not a racist.

He introduced a bill, with two other democrats, to decriminalized medical marihuana and let the states set their own policies. That might be a start, but that's is way too timid for a so called "libertarian minded individual".

Your efforts are futile TC. We already know who's going to win and we already know what's going to happen should she win.

PREPER FOR A SNUKE!

Clinton and all the other neo-cons the Republicans are running are basically the same on any issue of significant importance. I hope people get the choice between a neo-con and someone like Paul or Warren. Personally I prefer Warren to Paul but as long as we don't get another neo-con or whatever your choice of word for the status quo is then all is good.

I'm from Kentucky, my family lives in the town he "practiced" as an eye doctor, Bowling Green, and I live 45 minutes away.

He's a pandering grandstander and will do or say anything to get his name in the paper.

His greatest skill is being in the right place at the right time, to piggy back from the work of others, while being able to share the credit himself. He is a walking caricature.

And if you look at his voting record, you will see he is straight up Republican.

He also has zero chance on winning a national election

We all know the president is just a sock puppet :p

@inb4uall: We will see. It's early.

@Aljosa23: I'm pretty tired of the big budget political dynasties. And I think we're about to see Hillary get filleted by a new book following the flow of money in relation to the Clinton foundation.

No candidate is perfect, but no president in recent years has felt any different either. Maybe we could use someone to shake things up a bit.

Ron Paul was worth 5 million and Rand Paul is likely close to that. Compared to you and I that is a big budget political dynasty right there lol. Ron Paul himself has been in the House since the 1970's and thus he predates the Clintons and the Bushes. As a family who claim to be "Washington outsiders" they sure do love working there. Objectively I don't think it's fair to write off a candidate solely based on their family tree and I know you try to be as objective as possible. The bigger issue at play is money and connections in politics in general, not one individual who is merely trying to play the game. The problem is the game itself and how it is structured.

For the sake of argument I'll agree with your statement of "no president in recent years has felt any different" but then, why are we to believe Rand Paul will be any different? There's no indication to me that Rand Paul will drastically change the trajectory of the Presidency - the President for one isn't a king and can't enact policies by sheer force of will. I wouldn't bet on him getting much support from Democrats unless it's a view Democrats already share.

Going by some of his recent headlines like proposing a boost in Defense spending, he is positioning himself closer and closer to his fellow Republican candidates and adhering to the views that are important to primary voters. Rand Paul's flip flopping should be a concern and some places I've read they are saying he's even worse than Mitt Romney which is an achievement in itself lol.

Another thing is I don't like the idea of being different just for the sake of being different. Are his different views on issues upgrades over what his peers have? Again, for the sake of argument let's say they are and Rand doesn't shift further to the right as the primary goes on: that changes the question to - is he an idealogue like his father? Succeeding in politics is about compromise and pragmatism - neither of which someone like Ron Paul possessed. What Ron Paul did possess were some good ideas coupled with A LOT of bad ones like just about everything he ever said on economic and monetary policy but to me, what killed him was his total inability to move away from his views. To me, a candidate with so-so ideas but a willingness to be open towards alternate solutions is widely better than an unwavering candidate driven entirely by ideology. This might not apply to Rand Paul but I still think they are fair questions to discuss.

Hillary so far for me, but I'd like to hear more from Jeb Bush. Paul and Cruz are no's for me.

Yeah, I agree with you on pretty much every point. You're right that it's the connections that worry me most. And I think the reason Ron struggled so much to get into the White House wasn't necessarily his ideas, but his look and delivery of those ideas. He seems like a crazy old man, he's an easy target.

That's not to say I think he's a genius, but I do think someone like him (Rand?) may actually feel different in the White House. I'll be very interested to see how accurate (and damning) the Clinton Cash book is. Coming on the heels of her email scandal, it may really make the presidency out of her reach.

Aye, that book will be interesting when it drops.

This is on the front page of NYT this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

the point here is kentucky is a shithole and rand is off dicking around with nonsense instead of doing anything to fix it.

here is his voting record and sponsored bills.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/rand_paul/412492

From Jan 2011 to Apr 2015, Paul missed 41 of 1,306 roll call votes, which is 3.1%. This is worse than the median of 1.5% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving. The chart below reports missed votes over time.

ky is falling apart and he is faffing about not showing up for work at twice the average rate and trying to take animals off the endangered species list and defining what is and is not navigable waters.

anyway i know you don't want to hear this shit about your lazy incompetent candidate but you will be totally on board as soon as i get on clintons ass for being a privileged not connected to reality bought and paid for politician.

Yup... Saw that on FlipBoard this morning. It's especially damning when it comes from a media outlet like the NYT.

Of all of the people so far I like Scott Walker for a number of reasons. I prefer a governor of a state to be president. The very best people will never run for a political office because of what the media does to the families of those running for office. Especially conservative candidates.

Agreed, vote for Ron Paul!