I'm sure Rand Paul will win Colorado Primary

[rg17]

I think Rand will win Colorado or at least be 2nd because he is more supportive of Marijuana.

 

[mit26chell]

I live here and registered republican to support him.

 

[groverblue]

I live here and registered republican to support him.

now go register 100 more. - not a joke.

 

[specsaregood]

./

 

[Old No. 7]

Please cite me any quote from Randal where he is "supportive of Marijuana". I don't think you will find any.

 

[Old No. 7]

Please cite me any quote from Randal where he is "supportive of Marijuana". I don't think you will find any.

 

[specsaregood]

./

 

[erowe1]

I think Rand will win Colorado or at least be 2nd because he is more supportive of Marijuana.

In this poll from less than a year ago, 54% of Republicans in Colorado still opposed legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal recreational use.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/sw/sco04142015_trendscrosstabs_Stb96ct.pdf

That's not all bad for Rand, because there are still 42% of Republicans in Colorado who support it, and if these voters disproportionately support Rand, it will give him a boost.

But it's not a guarantee of a 1st or 2nd place finish.

 

[Old No. 7]

Have you actually watched that interview? He states outright that he thinks it is bad and you shouldn't use it. He explicitly says he does not want to be seen as advocating for marijuana. Just like I said.

He goes on to say we should end the war on drugs... He's saying he doesn't advocate drug use but also does not advocate prohibition laws.

Being a libertarian isn't about telling people to smoke pot, it's about telling people that most laws are bad.

At least that's the way I understand it.

 

[specsaregood]

./

 

[CPUd]

OP just posting random thoughts...

 

[Old No. 7]

Which is all well and good; but its not the same as being "supportive of marijuana." I think his position is clear: he is NOT supportive of marijuana or its use; but doesn't think that choosing to do so should potentially ruin your life because of the govt.

Well then what's the big deal? I stand corrected. What you said is right, I thought you were going anti-Rand lol.

 

[erowe1]

Well then what's the big deal? I stand corrected. What you said is right, I thought you were going anti-Rand lol.

I think the concern may be that it's those who paint Rand as pro-marijuana who are anti-Rand.

 

[dannno]

Well then what's the big deal? I stand corrected. What you said is right, I thought you were going anti-Rand lol.

It's only a big deal because so many Republicans have a stick up their ass about cannabis.. they have to clarify their position that they think it is bad even though they want it legal so it's slightly more palatable to those Republicans.

I think they have both said they agree it has medicinal benefits, Ron Paul certainly has.

 

[Antwan15]

Have you actually watched that interview? He states outright that he thinks it is bad and you shouldn't use it. He explicitly says he does not want to be seen as advocating for marijuana. Just like I said.

Give me a break, what's he supposed to do "endorse marijuana"?

Even people who smoke pot regularly don't endorse it unconditionally. Nobody has ever said "god, my life is so amazing because i smoke pot, everyone should do it!!!". Not really sure what your looking for here.

 

[Liberty74]

To support the use of pot is not an endorsement of its use. Too many people confuse the two to meaning the same thing.

 

[erowe1]

To support the use of pot is not an endorsement of its use.

Huh?

endorse - (verb) support, authorize
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/endorse?s=t

 

[RonPaulMall]

I think Rand will win Colorado or at least be 2nd because he is more supportive of Marijuana.

I'm 100% sure you are wrong, because Colorado doesn't have a Primary, and this year they aren't even having a straw vote during the caucus process. Final delegates will be selected in April (by which time the national nomination fight will likely be over) and they will all be unbound until the actual convention. Powers that be set it up that way because they didn't like the results Colorado had been producing in recent years.

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/colorado-gop-cancels-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

 

[erowe1]

I'm 100% sure you are wrong, because Colorado doesn't have a Primary, and this year they aren't even having a straw vote during the caucus process. Final delegates will be selected in April (by which time the national nomination fight will likely be over) and they will all be unbound until the actual convention. Powers that be set it up that way because they didn't like the results Colorado had been producing in recent years.

http://www.cpr.org/news/story/colorado-gop-cancels-2016-presidential-caucus-vote

This doesn't mean that Rand can't win this indirectly, albeit not nominally. What he would need to pursue is the election of unbound delegates who personally support him, rather than winning a straw poll. I think this development is probably even more advantageous for Rand, and would have been for Ron too, despite the intentions of the Republican leadership.

 

[dancjm]

Huh?

endorse - (verb) support, authorize
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/endorse?s=t

I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

- Support without endorsement.