Two polls. one from New Hampshire has Trump at 35%. Rand is down to 3%
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/2...-head-to-head/
It shows how easy it is to get your poll numbers up. Kasich has been airing very boring ads about himself in NH, and look what it has done to his numbers. Rand hasn't even started fully campaigning yet.
Rand has really hurt his chances by attacking Trump. Instead of attacking him he should have done the politically savvy move of adopting his immigration plan despite the inevitable "me too" jokes from the media. Rand had shown a willingness to compromise his beliefs for political gain in the past for the Republican establishment, it shouldn't have been a problem to do it for gains with the anti-establishment crowd Trump has tapped into.
Rand is running against the police state, he would never endorse that immigration "plan"Originally Posted by RickyJ
He is already opposed to birthright citizenship. He agrees with his Dad that our troops should be protecting our own border with Mexico rather than the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan. Total immigration levels and H1B visas I don't know if Rand has a clear position on but neither of those issues have anything to do with the police state. Rand could easily adopt most of Trump's plan, omit the e-verify part, and add a few ideas of his own without any risk of entering "police state" territory. Hell, Trump stole half the stuff in his immigration plan from Rand in the first place! Rand's biggest problem has been his fear of talking about his own record. Rand co-sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Resolution way back in 2011, a full four years before Trump first mentioned the issue. But NOBODY among my GOP friends and family knew Rand held this position and now everybody attributes it to Trump.
I knew it had to be that bigoted bloodthirsty neo-Trot from neo-Trot central when I read the "Oh my" in the title. I hate that f'n guy.
Great. McCain Jr.If you force Scott Walker’s supporters to choose between Rubio and Trump, they’ll take Rubio. Ben Carson’s supporters? Rubio. Ted Cruz’s? Rubio. Jeb Bush’s? Rubio (narrowly). Rand Paul’s? Rubio overwhelmingly, even though Rubio’s aggressively interventionist foreign policy is anathema to Paulworld. Across the board, among nearly every candidate’s voting bloc, Rubio is the preferred choice to Trump.
Marco Rubio Invades the World
From Yemen to Ukraine, the Florida senator wants war.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...des-the-world/
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/06/a...d-faction.htmlMuch like Sen. John McCain, Rubio appears to be a man who never met an intervention he did not like. [...]
Rubio bills himself as the candidate of the future, yet his “New American Century” platform might instead best be described as “Turn of the Century.” If you’re clamoring for the ‘Murica, “Democracy can flourish in the Middle East!” policy of the George W. Bush years, Rubio’s your guy. If you want something pensive, positive, and fresh—he probably isn’t.
In 2012, Rubio made perhaps his most worrisome statement: “I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at all, who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go ‘abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.’” There you have it. Next up: “Marco Rubio on why Thomas Jefferson’s ‘entangling alliances with none’ was foolish nonsense.” Rubio breaks rank with the Founding Fathers’ tradition and believes in globetrotting monster-destruction—or monster-making, judging by our Mideast record.
Voters will need to choose between this dumbed-down Woodrow Wilson or an alternative. Eleven years in, the Rumble on the Right continues.
Marco Rubio...may have grown up in the United States, but he is a Cuban raised in a community that has been agitating for the USA to overthrow the Castro regime for decades. So, it should come as little surprise that Rubio is so content to ignore the American national interest in favor of the latest neocon cause du jour. Because neocons, regardless of their background, have limited allegiance to the national interest, they see the nation primarily as a means rather than an end.
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
+rep
https://randpaul.com/issue/immigration
What's the opposite of inspiring? Playing it safe and trying not to offend anyone is killing Rand's chances.
**********s don't care about plans. They only care about tone and personality.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-25-2015 at 01:00 PM.
Nice one.....
**********s don't care about plans. They only care about tone and personality.
IDK if you coined that one but it's the first time I've heard it... **********s, brilliant!
"I am a bird"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us