Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 05:48:19 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2010 Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  Rand Paul raises $1 million
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Rand Paul raises $1 million  (Read 10096 times)
Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2534


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2009, 11:00:34 am »
Ignore

Well, now Paul is polling well above Grayson.
Logged

Zot
Rookie
*
Posts: 34


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 4.87

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2009, 07:23:50 pm »
Ignore

Rand Paul is cultivating relationships with republicans county by county.  Grayson is relying on the national party to get him through.  This is almost a mirror image of the Florida race.

Logged
IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22419
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2009, 07:46:16 pm »
Ignore

     I find some of Rand Paul's views disturbing, though I suppose he's as good as can get elected in Kentucky. Undecided
Logged

bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2009, 10:07:26 pm »
Ignore

I do hope he's nominated.

Same here. The Democrats need to pick up this seat.

There's no reason to think the Democrats would be favored if Rand Paul won the GOP nomination.

He'd certainly give them the best shot.

There's a good chance that a Republican who isn't a raving loony will attract some typically Democratic voters.

Kentucky Democrats? lol
Logged

Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6291
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: December 25, 2009, 04:11:55 am »
Ignore

I do hope he's nominated.

Same here. The Democrats need to pick up this seat.

There's no reason to think the Democrats would be favored if Rand Paul won the GOP nomination.

He'd certainly give them the best shot.

There's a good chance that a Republican who isn't a raving loony will attract some typically Democratic voters.

Kentucky Democrats? lol

Kentucky is DINO Heaven - make of that statement what you will
Logged

Zot
Rookie
*
Posts: 34


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: 4.87

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: December 25, 2009, 04:25:42 pm »
Ignore

People want to vote for democrats here, but quite often are unable to do so.

Rand Paul has been speaking in heavily democratic areas which is odd given that crossover votes aren't allowed.  It looks like he is preparing for the general election now.
Logged
timmer123
Full Member
***
Posts: 140


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: December 25, 2009, 05:43:58 pm »
Ignore

Rand Paul is very authentic. He'll make a good senator.  This is a "toss up" race now, but by next summer it'll be a likely R.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2009, 04:01:05 pm »
Ignore

I guess he's good for a Kentucky R, but he still has some of the similar unappealing positions of his father (illegal immigration, federal reserve).
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Ronnie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4829
United States
View Profile
« Reply #33 on: December 26, 2009, 05:20:15 pm »
Ignore

Rand Paul isn't so bad...I think he would vote with the GOP at least 85% of the time.
Logged

Born and raised in California
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2009, 06:37:26 pm »
Ignore

I do hope he's nominated.

Same here. The Democrats need to pick up this seat.

There's no reason to think the Democrats would be favored if Rand Paul won the GOP nomination.

He'd certainly give them the best shot.

There's a good chance that a Republican who isn't a raving loony will attract some typically Democratic voters.

Kentucky Democrats? lol

Kentucky is DINO Heaven - make of that statement what you will

"DINO" in that they like authoritarian Huckabee-style Republicans, not libertarians.
Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15798


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2010, 07:57:21 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes
Logged
Passing Through a Screen Door
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 71896
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2010, 10:07:22 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes

Ah yes because everyone knows Grayson would've been such a moderate because he voted for Bill Clinton 18 years ago when he was younger than both of us. Roll Eyes
Logged

Victory over Inks dedicated in memory.


01/05/2004-01/10/2014
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7688
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 18, 2010, 10:12:35 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes
We also have our chance to win this seat. It's doubtful but it could happen. Who knows what skeletons Paul could have in the closet or who Paul associated with that could be seen poorly through the media's lense.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7688
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2010, 06:49:46 pm »
Ignore

My point has been proven. Tongue
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30617
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2010, 06:53:32 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.
Logged

this is real
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15798


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2010, 08:25:07 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven. Tongue

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30617
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2010, 09:18:28 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven. Tongue

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge without anything interesting to say.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.  Paul may be more extreme than Grayson, but at least Paul gives legislative negotiators a viewpoint that they can operate within!  Far too many Republicans [and vice versa when the other party is in charge] 100% oppose issues that they used to support before just because a Democrat is proposing them.  Look at the Republican health care alternative from the early 90's, it looks not that different from HCR reform today.  Look at RomneyCare, not that different.  Yet electing someone like Romney as Senator isn't going to yield productive results, he'll just do whatever his partisan interests dictate him to do.  Although Paul is a minimalist, at least you can begin negotiations with him knowing that he's an honest negotiator.  And that's important.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless as McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.  If we have too many more issues like the bank bailout in the near future, we're going to be in so much trouble that it doesn't matter whether there's a Senator Kucinich or Senator Beck sitting in D.C.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 09:25:28 pm by Lunar »Logged

this is real
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15798


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2010, 09:24:17 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven. Tongue

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless at McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.

On civil rights? Don't you mean civil liberties? On civil rights he's already proven himself farther from the Democratic coalition than Trey Grayson would likely have been.

I don't consider that a rigid perspective is necessarily a more valid one. Just because the Chamber of Commerce does whatever they think will make them more money while Rand Paul does whatever fits with his worldview, it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce can't be right when Rand Paul is wrong, or even that the Chamber of Commerce is right less often than Paul. While I'm no fan of the Chamber, the notion that rigid and 'principled' always leads to better outcomes than pluralistic venality is incorrect. I'd rather have a venal money grubbing bastard who will help me pass the right policy than honest opposition that prevents the right policy from getting into place and undermines the people and the nation as a result. There is truth the oft-quoted Frederick the Great saying, "If I wished to punish a province, I would have it governed by philosophers."
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 09:28:20 pm by Beet »Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30617
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2010, 09:27:40 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven. Tongue

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless at McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.

On civil rights? Don't you mean civil liberties? On civil rights he's already proven himself farther from the Democratic coalition than Trey Grayson would likely have been.

I don't consider that a rigid perspective is necessarily a more valid one. Just because the Chamber of Commerce does whatever they think will make them more money while Rand Paul does whatever fits with his worldview, it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce can't be right when Rand Paul is wrong, or even that the Chamber of Commerce is right less often than Paul. While I'm no fan of the Chamber, the notion that rigid and 'principled' always leads to better outcomes than pluralistic venality is incorrect. I'd rather have a venal money grubbing bastard who will help me pass the right policy than honest opposition that prevents the right policy from getting into place and undermines the people and the nation as a result. There is truth the oft-quoted Frederick the Great saying, "If I wished to govern a province, I would have it governed by philosophers."

I don't disagree with you on the Chamber of Commerce, but what indication is that that Grayson will perform fair evaluations of legislation that can be worked with?  Or, as you imply, even corrupt evaluations that will result in positive outcomes in your perspective.  Paul gives so many inclinations that he'll be able to work across party lines on a host of issues.  On most economic issues, he'll be utterly entrenched, but Grayson would NEVER be the swing vote on anything, so why not have an ally on the GOP caucus who disagrees with unlimited war powers?

I'm certainly never of the believe that rigid beliefs are the best.  I'm a huge devil's advocate.
Logged

this is real
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15798


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2010, 09:29:26 pm »
Ignore

Bump. Well, I hope you are all happy now, especially the Democrats. You have your far right, ideologically hard core, Obama-like nominee and tea party triumph narrative. Roll Eyes

Imo, all my original comments were still accurate.  Remember that a year ago, Ran Paul was busy trying to find any traction whatsoever and he had some ridiculous scandal where his long-haired, death-metal band leader/campaign spokesman was posting racist things about "Afro-Americans" on his MySpace.

My point has been proven. Tongue

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

I would still support someone like Rand over Grayson.  Rand Paul can contribute a valid perspective to the conversation.  Grayson would just be a Chamber of Commerce stooge.  Sure, Paul might be more inclined to be the lone objector in unanimous consent clauses, but he'd be far more willing to side with a Democratic coalition on issues of war powers and civil rights.

The idea that Grayson would be a workable partner on any piece of legislation is utterly naive.  At BEST, he'd be like Bob Corker, but 10000% unwilling to negotiate on any issue where Mitch McConnell disagrees, so, he'd be pretty much as useless at McConnell except on rare issues like the bank bailout.

On civil rights? Don't you mean civil liberties? On civil rights he's already proven himself farther from the Democratic coalition than Trey Grayson would likely have been.

I don't consider that a rigid perspective is necessarily a more valid one. Just because the Chamber of Commerce does whatever they think will make them more money while Rand Paul does whatever fits with his worldview, it doesn't mean the Chamber of Commerce can't be right when Rand Paul is wrong, or even that the Chamber of Commerce is right less often than Paul. While I'm no fan of the Chamber, the notion that rigid and 'principled' always leads to better outcomes than pluralistic venality is incorrect. I'd rather have a venal money grubbing bastard who will help me pass the right policy than honest opposition that prevents the right policy from getting into place and undermines the people and the nation as a result. There is truth the oft-quoted Frederick the Great saying, "If I wished to govern a province, I would have it governed by philosophers."

I don't disagree with you on the Chamber of Commerce, but what indication is that that Grayson will perform fair evaluations of legislation that can be worked with?  Paul gives so many inclinations that he'll be able to work across party lines on a host of issues.  On most economic issues, he'll be utterly entrenched, but Grayson would NEVER be the swing vote on anything, so why not have an ally on the GOP caucus who disagrees with unlimited war powers?

I'm certainly never of the believe that rigid beliefs are the best.  I'm a huge devil's advocate.

Really? Like what issues would Rand Paul be the swing vote on that Grayson would not?
Logged
Passing Through a Screen Door
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 71896
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2010, 11:36:28 pm »
Ignore

All of this is assuming he actually loses. If he wins, then his "ridiculousness" becomes the new majority. Forgive me if I don't want to risk that sh!t.

That's right. All Rand Paul has to do is win a Senate seat in Kentucky, and then all of a sudden a majority will support restoring the gold standard and repealing the Civil Rights Act. All it takes is one Senator who believes in that stuff to bring it about! Just like how Bernie Sanders turned the US socialist so easily.

Oh and:

Really? Like what issues would Rand Paul Grayson be the swing vote on that Grayson Rand Paul would not?

Oh I forgot Grayson supported Clinton 18 years ago so he's obviously an Olympia Snowe clone. Roll Eyes

Really, there is likely to be next to no difference between what Paul and Grayson's voting records would look like. But Paul is easier to beat. And if he gets elected, it just means the GOP hold a Senate seat currently held by a lunatic with a lunatic. What's the big deal? With people like DeMint and Inhofe in the Senate and considering what who ever replaces Bob Bennett is obviously going to be like, why fear Rand Paul as the Antichrist?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 11:40:57 pm by Le Discorde C'est Moi »Logged

Victory over Inks dedicated in memory.


01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10453
United States


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2010, 01:00:31 pm »
Ignore

Because individual senators have a great deal of power with holds and other abilities to single-handedly forstall consideration of issues and nominees. Paul is so much a utopian whackjob he'll likely (ab)use those senitorial perogatives more in a single term then Jesse Helms did in 30 years.
Logged

Your self-serving slacktivism is propelling America to new heights.
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8404
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2010, 07:46:25 am »
Ignore

Because individual senators have a great deal of power with holds and other abilities to single-handedly forstall consideration of issues and nominees. Paul is so much a utopian whackjob he'll likely (ab)use those senitorial perogatives more in a single term then Jesse Helms did in 30 years.

But he's such a utopian whackjob that he'll probably block a bunch of stuff when the Republicans control Congress, too.
Logged

Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12723


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: August 08, 2010, 07:50:59 am »
Ignore

Because individual senators have a great deal of power with holds and other abilities to single-handedly forstall consideration of issues and nominees. Paul is so much a utopian whackjob he'll likely (ab)use those senitorial perogatives more in a single term then Jesse Helms did in 30 years.

But he's such a utopian whackjob that he'll probably block a bunch of stuff when the Republicans control Congress, too.

If he tries, the Republicans will disregard his holds and move forward.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines