Why Rand Paul was the stealth winner of the GOP debate

[mello]

http://theweek.com/articles/588216/why-rand-paul-stealth-winner-gop-debate

 

[Indy Vidual]

Just finished it, if Rand can (somehow) win the nomination, then he has a real chance to win the general election.

 

[CaptUSA]

Just finished it, if Rand can (somehow) win the nomination, then he has a real chance to win the general election.

Yep.

Here's hoping his poll numbers rise enough to get him polling against Hillary again. When the GOP sees those numbers, it'll be hard to deny that he's the best choice if they want to win. (which they all say they want to do.)

 

[mello]

My hope is that he crushes in the Iowa Caucus with the help of all of those college students that will be back from break. Hopefully, he will win by such a commanding margin that it will literally shock all those fucking talking heads into silence. I'd like to see how they plan to not talk about Rand after that win.

That will wake up the voters. This is what I hope they think about after that win:

"How did Rand win if all the reporters on all the networks said he had no chance of winning?"

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why Rand Paul was the stealth winner of the GOP debate
By Peter Weber - November 11, 2015

Fox Business wanted the fourth presidential debate to show that the network respects the Republican presidential candidates, unlike more successful financial news rival CNBC, and it proved that by letting the candidates largely run the show. That tended to favor candidates eager to jump in and assert themselves, so Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, and Sen. Ted Cruz got lots of speaking time, while rule-followers like Jeb Bush and Ben Carson did not.
...
Nevertheless, it was Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) who made the most persuasive case that he could win over voters who aren't committed conservative Republicans.

Paul, who is polling at about 3 percent, spent the first half of the debate trying mightily to get voters to care about the Federal Reserve and interest rates. But he started to make his mark when he jumped in to accuse Sen. Marco Rubio of being insufficiently conservative. Paul started out with the questionably popular assertion that families shouldn't get tax credits to pay for childcare, but turned that into a more winning argument that the U.S. spends too much on the military (more than 10 times the next country on the list), adding the kicker: "Can you be conservative and be liberal on military spending?"

It was a good line, well rehearsed, and it actually won him more than a little applause from the Republican audience. Paul's best moments, however, started when he calmly made a fool of Donald Trump, patiently waiting for Trump to finish talking aimlessly about the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a trade deal Trump hates but apparently knows little about — before noting that Trump's focus on China was misguided, since China isn't part of the TPP. The Fox Business moderators were so relieved that they didn't have to point that out, they practically thanked Paul. The junior senator from Kentucky went on to point out that the TPP would probably weaken China, ending with the reasonable argument that the U.S. presidency has gathered up too much power.
...
Paul's big moment was on foreign policy, however. Republicans are fond of arguing that President Obama is weak on national defense and has created a mess in the Middle East, but Paul said that his GOP colleagues are as hawkish as Hillary Clinton. That's not a new argument for Paul, but he followed it up with some potential consequences of the proposed no-fly zone that was popular on the debate stage:

Russia flies in that zone at the invitation of Iraq. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but you better know at least what we're getting into. So, when you think it's going to be a good idea to have a no-fly zone over Iraq, realize that means you are saying we are going to shoot down Russian planes. If you're ready for that, be ready to send your sons and daughters to another war in Iraq.... I am not happy about them flying over there. But I'm not naive enough to say, well, Iraq has them flying over their airspace, we're just going to announce that we're shooting them down? That is naive to the point of being something you might hear in junior high. [Rand Paul]​

...
Paul is clearly the most libertarian candidate running for the Republican nomination, and so far that hasn't benefited him much. But it's no accident that his final words in Tuesday's debate were: "I'm the only fiscal conservative on the stage." If he can convince enough Republican voters of that, he might have staying power — or at least another berth in the next primetime debate.
...
More: http://theweek.com/articles/588216/why-rand-paul-stealth-winner-gop-debate

 

[Jan2017]

Opposing more intervention in Iraq and Syria may not be a big winner with Republicans, but it's a hit with
the independents that the GOP (and Democrats) need to win the next presidential election.

http://theweek.com/articles/588216/why-rand-paul-stealth-winner-gop-debate

 

[randomname]

My hope is that he crushes in the Iowa Caucus with the help of all of those college students that will be back from break. Hopefully, he will win by such a commanding margin that it will literally shock all those fucking talking heads into silence. I'd like to see how they plan to not talk about Rand after that win.

That will wake up the voters. This is what I hope they think about after that win:

"How did Rand win if all the reporters on all the networks said he had no chance of winning?"

"Iowa doesnt matter"

 

[invisible]

Why Rand Paul was the stealth winner of the GOP debate
By Peter Weber - November 11, 2015

Thanks for posting the actual article. mello is the new Collins, with posting nothing but a link. I won't even read threads from this OP until there are enough responses to make it probable that there's something of substance there.

 

[mello]

.....

 

[mello]

Thanks for posting the actual article. mello is the new Collins, with posting nothing but a link. I won't even read threads from this OP until there are enough responses to make it probable that there's something of substance there.

I'm not a fan of swiping someone's copyrighted story, good or bad.
I don't think you'll sprain your wrist clicking on the link.

PS: All my links about Rand have substance. Haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[RecoveringNeoCon]

Guys, stop.

In the words of Huckabee, We need a united states of America, not a divided states of america!

 

[Feelgood]

I have a difficult time finding where anyone really acknowledges Rand did well, out side these forums. With the exception of Krauthamer defending Rand against O'Reilly, which floored me. Check out this video, these tools made me sick....

[video]http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4607090005001/scoring-gop-tax-plans/?playlist_id=3166411554001#sp=show-clips[/video]

 

[timosman]

I'm not a fan of swiping someone's copyrighted story, good or bad.
I don't think you'll sprain your wrist clicking on the link.

PS: All my links about Rand have substance. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Links to stories decay with time. Including the story makes search possible. Be a good member and play by the rules, it is not that hard.

 

[invisible]

I'm not a fan of swiping someone's copyrighted story, good or bad.
I don't think you'll sprain your wrist clicking on the link.

PS: All my links about Rand have substance. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Apparently up to 4 paragraphs are considered ok, before you get into "swiping" territory.
I don't mind clicking on a posted link, but there has to be some sort of incentive / bait for me to so do, like wanting to read the rest of an interesting article.

And yes, you seem to have posted a lot of apparently interesting stuff as of late, which is well appreciated. But when there is nothing there but a link, absolutely nothing to actually read, then there is an obvious lack of content, or substance.

Btw, there is no rule about this, at least not that I'm aware of. I just personally find posting nothing but a link annoying, and many others do as well. I think one person even started negging The Collins every time he did it.

 

[CPUd]

http://

 

[sam1952]

I have a difficult time finding where anyone really acknowledges Rand did well, out side these forums. With the exception of Krauthamer defending Rand against O'Reilly, which floored me. Check out this video, these tools made me sick....

[video]http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4607090005001/scoring-gop-tax-plans/?playlist_id=3166411554001#sp=show-clips[/video]

I think Eric Cantor should just suck Jeb's dick and get it over with... That was horrible