Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Proof the entire state really IS high by this point: according to a new poll. Rand Paul would beat Hillary Clinton in Colorado if the election were held today   ( politico.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Colorado, polls, reelection, Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, Mike Huckabee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  
•       •       •

553 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2014 at 1:47 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-24 12:49:22 PM  
Who would have been against the legalization of potijuana in Colorado? Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton?
 
2014-04-24 12:53:26 PM  
Even in the waterhead rodeo that is a Kentucky Senate election, RAND PAUL had enough dirt emerge on him to sink him if he ever actually runs for anything else. Imagine what will get churned up once an actual presidential campaign starts.
 
2014-04-24 12:58:15 PM  

Cagey B: Even in the waterhead rodeo that is a Kentucky Senate election, RAND PAUL had enough dirt emerge on him to sink him if he ever actually runs for anything else. Imagine what will get churned up once an actual presidential campaign starts.


"Waterhead Rodeo" is now the name of my Rev. Horton Heat cover band
 
2014-04-24 01:00:17 PM  
Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.
 
2014-04-24 01:03:05 PM  
A week after defending controversial Nevada rancher Clive Bundy against federal agencies, Republican U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is denouncing his comments about African-Americans.
 
2014-04-24 01:05:08 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: Who would have been against the legalization of potijuana in Colorado? Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton?


Both or neither is my guess. Hopefully it comes up in the debates.
 
2014-04-24 01:09:33 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.


Imagine Rand Paul in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

The Aristocrats.
 
2014-04-24 01:23:58 PM  
All hail Aqua Buddha!
 
2014-04-24 01:39:06 PM  
Alex Pareene :How 2009 Rand Paul will sabotage 2016 Rand Paul
The would-be presidential contender has a long history of kooky associations and unconventional ideas

For the last few years, Paul has enjoyed generally soft press coverage, because the political press loves a renegade Republican. But Republican hawks aren't going to let him anywhere near the nomination, and they'll spend the next two years digging up every slightly controversial thing he ever said to stop him

Rand Paul has been out there in front of cameras saying stupid shiat almost daily for a long time now. There is no way he will get past the debates and win the nomination.
 
2014-04-24 01:49:39 PM  

Delta1212: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

Imagine Rand Paul in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

The Aristocrats.


Imagine who they would put onto the Supreme Court.
 
2014-04-24 01:50:05 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.


Serious question: do you actually have a specific reason for that fear?  What policy positions has she taken that scare you so much?
 
2014-04-24 01:51:33 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Delta1212: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

Imagine Rand Paul in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

The Aristocrats.

Imagine who they would put onto the Supreme Court.


Can you say "Supreme Court Justice John Yoo"?
 
2014-04-24 01:51:41 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: At least Rand would be highly entertaining.


I heard a few people say that about GWB too.

Look how that turned out.
 
2014-04-24 01:55:11 PM  
Both are abstract candidates two and a half years out from an actual election.

Congratulations for sucking your thumb there TFA, but it means absolutely nothing.
 
2014-04-24 01:57:08 PM  
Yes, let's act like there is no prominent Democrat more liberal than Hillary Clinton who would easily clobber "Doctor" Paul in a general election.

Demetrius: Marcus Aurelius: At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

I heard a few people say that about GWB too.

Look how that turned out.


The difference is, back then, we were surprised to learn there were religious fundamentalists who wanted to destroy the American government. Now, we give them whatever their little hearts desire and hope they don't make too much a mess of the GOP primary.
 
2014-04-24 01:57:36 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Delta1212: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

Imagine Rand Paul in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

The Aristocrats.

Imagine who they would put onto the Supreme Court.


Supreme Court Justice The Rent is too Damn High presiding....
 
2014-04-24 01:59:06 PM  

As a guy that smokes a lot of pot, I'd just like to say...


southseascinema.org


Please - pass the poi

 
2014-04-24 01:59:22 PM  
This just in, Colorado isn't a blue state. Hell, Dems only make up about 31% of registered voters.
 
2014-04-24 02:01:19 PM  
Well he is a Republican so why should it be a surprise that he would beat a woman?
 
2014-04-24 02:01:45 PM  
1) It's pretty easy to get a derpy sample if landlines are involved in Colorado.
2) The other results of the poll indicate an extremely conservative sampling.
3) Thanks to SCOTUS, anti-Obamacare and anti-Udall ads run on a loop around here without any type of rebuttal.
4) 2016 is a long way out.
 
2014-04-24 02:02:15 PM  
yea, Colorado decides Presidential Elections.  sounds like something Faux News would say.


you'd better lay off the pot....
 
2014-04-24 02:03:27 PM  

Delta1212: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

Imagine Rand Paul in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

The Aristocrats.



they'd finish what Ronnie Reagan and bushie Jr started.
 
2014-04-24 02:05:19 PM  

qorkfiend: Marcus Aurelius: Delta1212: Marcus Aurelius:

Imagine who they would put onto the Supreme Court.

Can you say "Supreme Court Justice John Yoo"?


I can't and hope he stays in academia, but post makes little sense.  Yoo is best known for his role in authoring the infamous legal memoranda used by the Buh-but-Bush admin to justify enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture.  Yoo advocates expansive power for the executive branch.  Neither position fits Paul's outlook.
 
2014-04-24 02:06:15 PM  
Hillary is so fetch.
 
2014-04-24 02:06:57 PM  

Linux_Yes: yea, Colorado decides Presidential Elections.  sounds like something Faux News would say.


you'd better lay off the pot....


We were the "deciding state" in 2012.

Link
 
2014-04-24 02:07:09 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: qorkfiend: Marcus Aurelius: Delta1212: Marcus Aurelius:

Imagine who they would put onto the Supreme Court.

Can you say "Supreme Court Justice John Yoo"?

I can't and hope he stays in academia, but post makes little sense.  Yoo is best known for his role in authoring the infamous legal memoranda used by the Buh-but-Bush admin to justify enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture.  Yoo advocates expansive power for the executive branch.  Neither position fits Paul's outlook.


What makes you think that Paul's outlook would have any effect on who the Republicans in the Senate are willing to confirm?
 
2014-04-24 02:07:16 PM  

Delta1212: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

Imagine Rand Paul in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

The Aristocrats.


You make it sound like legalized hunting of homeless people for sport would be a bad thing.
 
2014-04-24 02:09:32 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.

Serious question: do you actually have a specific reason for that fear?  What policy positions has she taken that scare you so much?


Presidentin' while Clinton?
 
2014-04-24 02:09:57 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.

Serious question: do you actually have a specific reason for that fear?  What policy positions has she taken that scare you so much?


Benghazi!
 
2014-04-24 02:11:42 PM  

Delta1212: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

Imagine Rand Paul in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

The Aristocrats.


www.unsoughtinput.com
 
2014-04-24 02:14:29 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: This just in, Colorado isn't a blue state. Hell, Dems only make up about 31% of registered voters.


It's not a red state either. It's a weird state.

~900k Active Dem Voters ~940k Active Repubs and ~1 Million Unaffiliated

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2014/March /V otersByPartyStatus.pdf
 
2014-04-24 02:15:30 PM  

Cagey B: Even in the waterhead rodeo that is a Kentucky Senate election, RAND PAUL had enough dirt emerge on him to sink him if he ever actually runs for anything else. Imagine what will get churned up once an actual presidential campaign starts.


It's pretty low class to compare the Kentucky Senate election to anencephalic babies.  It's not the waterheads' fault, and they shouldn't be insulted for how they were born.
 
2014-04-24 02:15:59 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Alex Pareene :How 2009 Rand Paul will sabotage 2016 Rand Paul
The would-be presidential contender has a long history of kooky associations and unconventional ideas

For the last few years, Paul has enjoyed generally soft press coverage, because the political press loves a renegade Republican. But Republican hawks aren't going to let him anywhere near the nomination, and they'll spend the next two years digging up every slightly controversial thing he ever said to stop him

Rand Paul has been out there in front of cameras saying stupid shiat almost daily for a long time now. There is no way he will get past the debates and win the nomination.


If there's one bad thing about the Christie scandal, it's that it dashes our chances of seeing the Christie-Paul showdown I was looking forward to. Watching those two go at it would be better than the Giuliani-Romney catfight of 2008.
 
2014-04-24 02:16:50 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Alex Pareene :How 2009 Rand Paul will sabotage 2016 Rand Paul
The would-be presidential contender has a long history of kooky associations and unconventional ideas

For the last few years, Paul has enjoyed generally soft press coverage, because the political press loves a renegade Republican. But Republican hawks aren't going to let him anywhere near the nomination, and they'll spend the next two years digging up every slightly controversial thing he ever said to stop him

Rand Paul has been out there in front of cameras saying stupid shiat almost daily for a long time now. There is no way he will get past the debates and win the nomination.


Your post assumes that the Republican primary will contain at least one candidate that doesn't say stupid shiat almost daily. That is not a safe assumption to make.
 
2014-04-24 02:17:24 PM  
After what happened to his dad last time, I don't see how anyone can seriously think that Rand Paul would receive the Republican nomination.
 
2014-04-24 02:17:47 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Ow! That was my feelings!: This just in, Colorado isn't a blue state. Hell, Dems only make up about 31% of registered voters.

It's not a red state either. It's a weird state.

~900k Active Dem Voters ~940k Active Repubs and ~1 Million Unaffiliated

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2014/March /V otersByPartyStatus.pdf


If by weird, you mean awesome, you are correct.
 
2014-04-24 02:24:28 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: A week after defending controversial Nevada rancher Clive Bundy against federal agencies, Republican U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is denouncing his comments about African-Americans.


It's funny because his dad made the same arguments.
 
2014-04-24 02:25:37 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.

Serious question: do you actually have a specific reason for that fear?  What policy positions has she taken that scare you so much?


She was on the board of WalMart before she even got near the White House.  She's more Republican than most Republicans used to be.  If you thought her husband went crazy with deregulation, you just wait.

But I have to admit Rand Paul is much scarier, if he actually had a shot.  Which he doesn't.
 
2014-04-24 02:31:30 PM  

Fano: Hillary is so fetch.


Quit trying to make "Hilary" happen.
 
2014-04-24 02:31:44 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: She was on the board of WalMart before she even got near the White House. She's more Republican than most Republicans used to be. If you thought her husband went crazy with deregulation, you just wait.

But I have to admit Rand Paul is much scarier, if he actually had a shot. Which he doesn't.


And this.  Hillary would be Wall St's best friend.  Probably even friendlier to them than Rand.  But Rand would be a danger to the world in other areas.

Both should be cast aside in favour of more reasonable human beings.
 
2014-04-24 02:31:53 PM  
This is just a reflection of Hillary Clinton not being very popular. The only people who seem to think she is a lock for POTUS are the same democrat ditto heads that seem to think Obama is flawless. There is a very good reason that the majority of the dems voted for Obama and not Hillary. The country had the chance to put Hillary in charge and they decided to go with an unknown vs what they knew with Clinton
 
2014-04-24 02:33:50 PM  
Not that this poll should be taken seriously, it shouldn't. But this type of result in CO shouldn't surprise anyone. Colorado has a significant 'libertarian' bent. We didn't legalize weed because we are so progressive, we legalized weed because prohibition is stupid and 'fark you, leave me and others alone.' Hillary(D-Goldman Sachs) will have problems winning Colorado no matter who she faces.

//Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.
 
2014-04-24 02:34:13 PM  

kindms: This is just a reflection of Hillary Clinton not being very popular. The only people who seem to think she is a lock for POTUS are the same democrat ditto heads that seem to think Obama is flawless. There is a very good reason that the majority of the dems voted for Obama and not Hillary. The country had the chance to put Hillary in charge and they decided to go with an unknown vs what they knew with Clinton


You sound independent.
 
2014-04-24 02:41:18 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.


She is "polarizing" because she is the front runner. She wasn't considered polarizing when Obama one the nomination in fact tons of Republicans said they wished she would have won.

The "Polarizing" thing is bullshiat. Anyone who becomes the front runner will become "polarizing". Obama, Clinton, Kerry - all were considered "polarizing" because they one the nomination and the GOP ramped up their campaign to make them look like the devil.

Who do you think if they got the nomination wouldn't be labeled "The most liberal... ever" or be called "polarizing" by the Republicans?
 
2014-04-24 02:41:33 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.


She scares me a lot less when I factor in who she would pick for the supreme court, because leftist causes would be safe.
 
2014-04-24 02:42:23 PM  

neversubmit: Well he is a Republican so why should it be a surprise that he would beat a woman?


Thats weird.  I though Alan Grayson was a democrat.
 
2014-04-24 02:44:29 PM  
Wait until his Colorado fans find out:
He is AGAINST gay marriage.
He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

Most of his fan base has no clue of his actual positions on things.
 
2014-04-24 02:48:25 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

She is "polarizing" because she is the front runner. She wasn't considered polarizing when Obama one the nomination in fact tons of Republicans said they wished she would have won.

The "Polarizing" thing is bullshiat. Anyone who becomes the front runner will become "polarizing". Obama, Clinton, Kerry - all were considered "polarizing" because they one the nomination and the GOP ramped up their campaign to make them look like the devil.

Who do you think if they got the nomination wouldn't be labeled "The most liberal... ever" or be called "polarizing" by the Republicans?


Read the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.
 
2014-04-24 02:49:01 PM  

Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.


citation?
 
2014-04-24 02:51:18 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Read the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.


Now re-read what I said. What possible Dem candidate you think would not be just as "polarizing" after the GOP set their sites on them?
 
2014-04-24 02:53:11 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?


Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.



http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.
 
2014-04-24 02:54:16 PM  
Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.
 
2014-04-24 02:55:32 PM  

czetie: Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.


I think this is funny because when Bill Clinton ran the first time Hillary was considered the idealistic liberal and now people have the totally opposite belief.
 
2014-04-24 02:58:23 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Read the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.

Now re-read what I said. What possible Dem candidate you think would not be just as "polarizing" after the GOP set their sites on them?


I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.
 
2014-04-24 02:59:50 PM  
Nobody's that excited for Hilary.

Plenty of people are horrified by Republicans enough to put her in the White House.
 
2014-04-24 03:01:30 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.


Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?
 
2014-04-24 03:03:34 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.


Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?
 
2014-04-24 03:06:25 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?


Yeah:
The main thing I've said is not to legalize them

Right that is so open to interpretation if he wants to legalize it or not. Him  specifically saying he is not to legalize it when specifically asked about it. Right just keep believing your bullshiat no matter what reality actually is.
 
2014-04-24 03:07:49 PM  

Corvus: People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.


A large part of this confusion could be driven by the many inconsistencies in his statements:

Paul has previously supported states' rights to legalize marijuana, but didn't comment on the proposed law's effect on pot legislation. On March 24, 2013, he told Fox News, "The main thing I've said is not to legalize them [marijuana and synthetic recreational drugs] but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time."
 
2014-04-24 03:08:32 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?


So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?
 
2014-04-24 03:09:18 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?

Yeah:
The main thing I've said is not to legalize them

Right that is so open to interpretation if he wants to legalize it or not. Him  specifically saying he is not to legalize it when specifically asked about it. Right just keep believing your bullshiat no matter what reality actually is.


What's Hillary's position???
 
2014-04-24 03:10:43 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?


Yeah Paul is a big supporter of legalizing pot. Just keep telling yourself that so he can win an election and screw you over. Actually maybe he is right about pot:

During an April 10 event at Howard University, Paul said, "I think that if you use it too much you will lose IQ points, I think if you use it too much you won't show up for class, I think you'll eat too many Doritos."

It seems that most of his pot smoking followers lost many IQ points.
 
2014-04-24 03:11:41 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?


You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?
 
2014-04-24 03:12:40 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?

Yeah:
The main thing I've said is not to legalize them

Right that is so open to interpretation if he wants to legalize it or not. Him  specifically saying he is not to legalize it when specifically asked about it. Right just keep believing your bullshiat no matter what reality actually is.

What's Hillary's position???


Don't know. Don't care. The issue was about Rand Paul follower fans who are fools and like him for positions that he is actually against.

You seem to have a hard time focusing on what the discussion is about.
 
2014-04-24 03:13:49 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?


I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.
 
2014-04-24 03:14:35 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: He is AGAINST legalizing pot.

citation?

Q: You would like to relax some of the laws for people who possess and are smoking marijuana, and synthetic recreational drugs. Why?
PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

People are huge fans of his and have no idea on his actual positions are and like him for positions that he doesn't actually stand for.

Meh. That is a pretty wishy-washy position, plenty of room to 'evolve'. What's Hillary's position on legal weed?

Yeah:
The main thing I've said is not to legalize them

Right that is so open to interpretation if he wants to legalize it or not. Him  specifically saying he is not to legalize it when specifically asked about it. Right just keep believing your bullshiat no matter what reality actually is.

What's Hillary's position???

Don't know. Don't care. The issue was about Rand Paul follower fans who are fools and like him for positions that he is actually against.

You seem to have a hard time focusing on what the discussion is about.


Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.
 
2014-04-24 03:14:37 PM  
Rand Paul: Smoking Pot makes you stupid! And I want to make sure to keep it illegal.

Pot Smokers: Hey lets vote for this guy!!!

I guess Rand Paul might be right about something.
 
2014-04-24 03:15:21 PM  
And George McGovern would beat Richard Nixon in Massachusetts, and Walter Mondale would
beat Ronald Reagan in Minnesota, and Dewey would defeat Truman....
 
2014-04-24 03:15:30 PM  

Corvus: Don't know. Don't care


Heh.
 
2014-04-24 03:17:36 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.


I am not frothing. I am pointing to the pot smoking idiots who think Paul is great when Paul has said they are idiots and would not legalize pot.

They are fools. I think it's funny. And then they get all mad and ignore reality when you point out to them they have no idea what their idols positions actually are for an issue that is so important to them.
 
2014-04-24 03:18:35 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.


Yes you did:

Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.


Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?
 
2014-04-24 03:20:13 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.

I am not frothing. I am pointing to the pot smoking idiots who think Paul is great when Paul has said they are idiots and would not legalize pot.

They are fools. I think it's funny. And then they get all mad and ignore reality when you point out to them they have no idea what their idols positions actually are for an issue that is so important to them.


You took all that from some poll? Do you even know any pot smokers?
 
2014-04-24 03:20:38 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Read the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.

Now re-read what I said. What possible Dem candidate you think would not be just as "polarizing" after the GOP set their sites on them?

I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.


So by that definition would you be willing to criticize any of the right for being polarizing?
 
2014-04-24 03:21:25 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.

Yes you did:
Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?


Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?
 
2014-04-24 03:22:37 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.

I am not frothing. I am pointing to the pot smoking idiots who think Paul is great when Paul has said they are idiots and would not legalize pot.

They are fools. I think it's funny. And then they get all mad and ignore reality when you point out to them they have no idea what their idols positions actually are for an issue that is so important to them.

You took all that from some poll? Do you even know any pot smokers?


Nope not from the poll from first hand experience on Fark threads.
 
2014-04-24 03:23:11 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.

Yes you did:
Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?

Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?


Should the Republicans, since by your definition, if half the country dislikes them, they are polarizing candidates.
 
2014-04-24 03:23:13 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.

Yes you did:
Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?

Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?


So then who would be another choice that would not become polarizing at all then?
 
2014-04-24 03:23:30 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Read the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.

Now re-read what I said. What possible Dem candidate you think would not be just as "polarizing" after the GOP set their sites on them?

I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

So by that definition would you be willing to criticize any of the right for being polarizing?


I certainly do, on a regular basis.
 
2014-04-24 03:24:26 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: ead the article. Paul 41/30 favorable/unfavorable, Huckabee 37/30, Clinton 48/47.

Notice something? All but 5% had a strong opinion of Hillary. That is polarization. Love her or hate her, there isn't much in between.


An alternate analysis occurred to me.  Hillary was once married to the president of the US.  She was famously a candidate for the Dem nomination in '08.  She's been the Secretary of State lately.  Pretty much everyone in the US knows who she is and has some idea of her.

It is possible to think that non-political Americans (which seems like roughly half or more of the population) would have had less exposure to Rand Paul and even less to Huckabee.

This could explain the lack of a strong reaction.  If someone asks you if you approve or disapprove of Jerimiah Kowalski... you say to yourself, "Who's that?" and answer that you don't have an opinion of them.

Don't forget, a lot of Americans are totally divorced from the political process.
 
2014-04-24 03:24:54 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: What's Hillary's position???


I just looked it up because I was curious. (unlike you I am actually capable of looking up positions of candidates).

Her position is very similar to Rand Pauls. Shorter sentencing, treatment over incarceration.
 
2014-04-24 03:27:06 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: I don't think we have the same definition of 'polarizing'. If half the people love you and half hate you, to me that is polarization.

Ok fine. Now answer my question? What politician do you think the democrats could nominate that after the GOP got them in their sites with negative press  wouldn't be that way?

Can you give an answer?

So? One party attacks other party candidate, film at 11.  You don't think Dems attack Repub candidates?

You said Clinton is too polarizing so she shouldn't get the nom. So then who would be a better candidate who would not get "polarized" then?

You can't name one?

I didn't say that at all. I stated she is polarizing and Dems have work to do to overcome that, if she is the Nom.

Yes you did:
Ow! That was my feelings!: //Hillary has a ton of baggage and Dems would be fools to ignore how polarizing she is.

Are you trying to pretend now you weren't saying Dems should think twice before nominating her because of those issues?

Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?

So then who would be another choice that would not become polarizing at all then?


Hillary has been in national politics for over 20 years. EVERYONE knows her. Everyone has an opinion of her. Most candidates lack that type of exposure, which is why 20-30% have no strong opinion of most candidates, whereas it's only 5% for Hillary. She might be the most 'polarizing' candidate in modern US history. Good luck with that.
 
2014-04-24 03:27:15 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?


Depends.  If that candidate polarizes people 51-49%, that's not a bad nomination.  If it's 55-45% that's a brilliant nomination.

That being said, I really don't want HIllary to be the president of the US.  Obama's far enough right already, thank you very much.
 
2014-04-24 03:27:20 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Yes, Dems should think twice about nominating a polarizing candidate. Isn't that common sense?


The only way to have someone be "non-polarizing" is to get someone that no one really knows about. And once people got to know them during the campaign they are going to get about a 50/50 split. So saying "Don't nominate someone polarizing" is stupid because going through the political process everyone becomes "polarizing".

Is this too complicated for you to understand?
 
2014-04-24 03:28:02 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Hillary has been in national politics for over 20 years. EVERYONE knows her. Everyone has an opinion of her. Most candidates lack that type of exposure, which is why 20-30% have no strong opinion of most candidates, whereas it's only 5% for Hillary. She might be the most 'polarizing' candidate in modern US history. Good luck with that.


So Obama is less "Polarizing" than Hillary?
 
2014-04-24 03:28:49 PM  
Last time Hillary ran for president, she treated it as a coronation that was owed to her. I'm glad OObama derailed that and caused much weeping at the Clinton News Network.
 
2014-04-24 03:28:51 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: What's Hillary's position???

I just looked it up because I was curious. (unlike you I am actually capable of looking up positions of candidates).

Her position is very similar to Rand Pauls. Shorter sentencing, treatment over incarceration.


Plenty of room to 'evolve' huh?
 
2014-04-24 03:29:08 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: which is why 20-30% have no strong opinion of most candidates


And after a political campaign do you think people would still have a 20-30% no strong opinion about them?

If no, then why does it matter what it is when it starts?
 
2014-04-24 03:30:39 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: What's Hillary's position???

I just looked it up because I was curious. (unlike you I am actually capable of looking up positions of candidates).

Her position is very similar to Rand Pauls. Shorter sentencing, treatment over incarceration.

Plenty of room to 'evolve' huh?


Not what I said. You seem to really have a heard time focusing on what is being discussed. You were the one saying Pauls position could "evolve" because you didn't like that he said he was against legalizing pot.

I never said that for either of the candidates.
 
2014-04-24 03:33:52 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: which is why 20-30% have no strong opinion of most candidates

And after a political campaign do you think people would still have a 20-30% no strong opinion about them?

If no, then why does it matter what it is when it starts?


Go ahead and nominate her, I don't care. But she will have problems winning in places like Colorado.
 
2014-04-24 03:34:27 PM  
Paul still has 29% undecided.  Clinton has 5%.

People largely don't know anything about Rand Paul, and his poll numbers are probably slightly above Generic Republican because of the "oh yeah, that guy" factor.  Polling on this right now only makes sense if you work fort a PAC and want to fundraise for/against someone.
 
2014-04-24 03:34:35 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: What's Hillary's position???

I just looked it up because I was curious. (unlike you I am actually capable of looking up positions of candidates).

Her position is very similar to Rand Pauls. Shorter sentencing, treatment over incarceration.

Plenty of room to 'evolve' huh?

Not what I said. You seem to really have a heard time focusing on what is being discussed. You were the one saying Pauls position could "evolve" because you didn't like that he said he was against legalizing pot.

I never said that for either of the candidates.


I don't trust either of them on the issue.
 
2014-04-24 03:35:27 PM  

BSABSVR: Paul still has 29% undecided.  Clinton has 5%.

People largely don't know anything about Rand Paul, and his poll numbers are probably slightly above Generic Republican because of the "oh yeah, that guy" factor.  Polling on this right now only makes sense if you work fort a PAC and want to fundraise for/against someone.


You've also got to think that Paul will look like a nutcase to undecideds because they haven't been exposed to him.  Undecideds usually don't break for fringe candidates.
 
2014-04-24 03:37:18 PM  

BSABSVR: Paul still has 29% undecided.  Clinton has 5%.

People largely don't know anything about Rand Paul, and his poll numbers are probably slightly above Generic Republican because of the "oh yeah, that guy" factor.  Polling on this right now only makes sense if you work fort a PAC and want to fundraise for/against someone.


Also like I said before a lot of his  supporters think he is a civil libertarian, which he is not at all.
 
2014-04-24 03:45:39 PM  
Marijuana policy is going to be a major sleeper issue in 2016. Should be interesting.
 
2014-04-24 03:50:11 PM  
Colorado as a whole is VERY conservative.  The large urban areas are not so conservative.  When it comes to a popular vote, the urban areas override the rural areas.  If this poll was a statewide poll that didn't focus proportionately on the urban areas but just blanketed the state, then it's surprising that Paul's approval wasn't much lower because of him not being conservative enough.  I've lived in MS, TX, UT, and CO.  CO is very conservative.

I've always wondered what it'd be like to live someplace that wasn't so conservative, but I appear to be stuck in CO now.
 
2014-04-24 03:52:39 PM  
img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-04-24 03:58:00 PM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com

This should be good.
 
2014-04-24 04:01:54 PM  

Explodo: Colorado as a whole is VERY conservative.  The large urban areas are not so conservative.  When it comes to a popular vote, the urban areas override the rural areas.  If this poll was a statewide poll that didn't focus proportionately on the urban areas but just blanketed the state, then it's surprising that Paul's approval wasn't much lower because of him not being conservative enough.  I've lived in MS, TX, UT, and CO.  CO is very conservative.

I've always wondered what it'd be like to live someplace that wasn't so conservative, but I appear to be stuck in CO now.



replygif.net

//oh boy, now I need a drink.
 
2014-04-24 04:17:31 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Marijuana policy is going to be a major sleeper issue in 2016. Should be interesting.


Thank god some people will focus on the "unimportant" issues like healthcare coverage, education, war, civil rights, income inequality. Instead of the huge important issue of "I want to smoke pot easier".
 
2014-04-24 04:22:01 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Marijuana policy is going to be a major sleeper issue in 2016. Should be interesting.

Thank god some people will focus on the "unimportant" issues like healthcare coverage, education, war, civil rights, income inequality. Instead of the huge important issue of "I want to smoke pot easier".


Ya know, some people might actually have a business interest in the MJ issue.  I voted for Obama and against the Mormon for a reason.
 
2014-04-24 04:24:52 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Marijuana policy is going to be a major sleeper issue in 2016. Should be interesting.

Thank god some people will focus on the "unimportant" issues like healthcare coverage, education, war, civil rights, income inequality. Instead of the huge important issue of "I want to smoke pot easier".


I like weed and I may vote to a degree based on positions relating to decriminalization/medical use but I would never waste a vote simply on the issue of legalization.  It is so far down my priority list, as to be something I would pretty much ignore politically.
 
2014-04-24 04:26:22 PM  
I can't wait until pot is legalized nationwide and stoners are just considered pot hipsters.
 
2014-04-24 04:46:40 PM  

Corvus: czetie: Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.

I think this is funny because when Bill Clinton ran the first time Hillary was considered the idealistic liberal and now people have the totally opposite belief.


It's like a twenty year career in Washington turns idealistic outsiders into cynical insiders.  Who knew?
 
2014-04-24 05:19:35 PM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Paul has no chance of getting the Repub nom, you are frothing over nothing.

I am not frothing. I am pointing to the pot smoking idiots who think Paul is great when Paul has said they are idiots and would not legalize pot.

They are fools. I think it's funny. And then they get all mad and ignore reality when you point out to them they have no idea what their idols positions actually are for an issue that is so important to them.

You took all that from some poll? Do you even know any pot smokers?

Nope not from the poll from first hand experience on Fark threads.


Experience from Fark threads? Watch out guys, we got an expert here!
 
2014-04-24 05:40:16 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Corvus: czetie: Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.

I think this is funny because when Bill Clinton ran the first time Hillary was considered the idealistic liberal and now people have the totally opposite belief.

It's like a twenty year career in Washington turns idealistic outsiders into cynical insiders.  Who knew?


So my take actually is maybe she is a candidate with good inside knowledge that can twist arms and get things done.
 
2014-04-24 05:41:20 PM  
It's pretty old news that Colorado has its share of lolbertarians who smoke weed.

Though I would agree Clinton is a terrible choice. Way too much baggage.
 
2014-04-24 05:44:00 PM  

whidbey: Though I would agree Clinton is a terrible choice. Way too much baggage.


Like what exactly?

Most of the "baggage" I can think of is Republican generated BS like Benghazi and the stupid stuff done as attacks during the Bill Clinton administration and those have not much substance and people are tired of them.

She is actually very vetted there is not going to be anything "new" on her because they have gone after her so much already.
 
2014-04-24 05:44:03 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: This just in, Colorado isn't a blue state.


Except for their senate delegation, the governor, and the last two presidential elections.
 
2014-04-24 05:47:55 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: If by weird, you mean awesome, you are correct.


There is considerable overlap between the two.
 
2014-04-24 05:58:56 PM  

Corvus: Wait until his Colorado fans find out:
He is AGAINST gay marriage.


So is Colorado, alas.

Including the so-called "libertarians" I have met in Colorado.
 
2014-04-24 06:04:46 PM  

Corvus: I think this is funny because when Bill Clinton ran the first time Hillary was considered the idealistic liberal and now people have the totally opposite belief.


Since then, she has held public office and done stuff that revealed her actual politics.
 
2014-04-24 06:17:33 PM  

Corvus: whidbey: Though I would agree Clinton is a terrible choice. Way too much baggage.

Like what exactly?

Most of the "baggage" I can think of is Republican generated BS like Benghazi and the stupid stuff done as attacks during the Bill Clinton administration and those have not much substance and people are tired of them.

She is actually very vetted there is not going to be anything "new" on her because they have gone after her so much already.


We're not going to get anywhere with this. I'd say since we agree on most other things, this is my take:

People hated her husband, and hate her. Not just lilbertarians, either. Many of us would like to see some fresh blood for 2016 like they did when they ran Obama. Warren is the best choice. Clinton is a very lazy oligarchical choice where it's just going to cause so much bullshiat, it's going to make Obama's term look like a dog cart ride. She's really better off out of the picture. Of course, reality is probably going to dictate otherwise. But I sure hope not. I really don't want a return to 2000 where I punted the system with my vote.
 
2014-04-24 06:21:00 PM  

Mercutio74: That being said, I really don't want HIllary to be the president of the US.


Since when has been a matter of voting for a candidate you actually want, instead of picking which of two candidates you hate the least?
 
2014-04-24 06:48:06 PM  

Corvus: czetie: Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.

I think this is funny because when Bill Clinton ran the first time Hillary was considered the idealistic liberal and now people have the totally opposite belief.


It is funny like when Clinton was President she was undermining the office by being a powerful lawyer with lots of connections in the legal establishment, inviting allegations of favoritism and corruption by the executive favoring her connections. Now after more years in various legislative and executive roles, she is a nobody who only has a shot at being President because of who her husband is.
 
2014-04-24 06:49:27 PM  

static1.fjcdn.com

 
2014-04-24 07:10:01 PM  

whidbey: People hated her husband, and hate her. Not just lilbertarians, either. Many of us would like to see some fresh blood for 2016 like they did when they ran Obama. Warren is the best choice. Clinton is a very lazy oligarchical choice where it's just going to cause so much bullshiat, it's going to make Obama's term look like a dog cart ride. She's really better off out of the picture. Of course, reality is probably going to dictate otherwise. But I sure hope not. I really don't want a return to 2000 where I punted the system with my vote.


Yes and they hate Obama to and they will hate whoever the candidate is for 2016. The problem is not Hilary. It's the partisanship and attacks that the GOP does for whoever is nominee.

You think if Hillary is not nominated the Republicans are going to go easy on the person?

I would rather someone vetted then someone not. New issues are a lot bigger deal than 30 year old ones.
 
2014-04-24 07:12:09 PM  

Corvus: You think if Hillary is not nominated the Republicans are going to go easy on whoever the nominee is?


There clarified what I meant.

The idea that if we elect someone not Hilary the Republicans won't send hundreds of made up controversies about them is naive.
 
2014-04-24 09:34:24 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Ow! That was my feelings!: This just in, Colorado isn't a blue state. Hell, Dems only make up about 31% of registered voters.

It's not a red state either. It's a weird state.

~900k Active Dem Voters ~940k Active Repubs and ~1 Million Unaffiliated

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2014/March /V otersByPartyStatus.pdf



That isn't weird. The moderates and liberals in the cities are surrounded by evangelicals and military who are conservatives and libertarians. Right now the moderates and libertarians are one issue voters and would probably see Hillary take away their weed.
 
2014-04-24 11:48:47 PM  
I would love to see President Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.

That would make me happy.
 
2014-04-24 11:56:49 PM  

xria: Corvus: czetie: Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.

I think this is funny because when Bill Clinton ran the first time Hillary was considered the idealistic liberal and now people have the totally opposite belief.

It is funny like when Clinton was President she was undermining the office by being a powerful lawyer with lots of connections in the legal establishment, inviting allegations of favoritism and corruption by the executive favoring her connections. Now after more years in various legislative and executive roles, she is a nobody who only has a shot at being President because of who her husband is.


You're an asshole and an idiot for ignoring her performance of Secretary of State, unless you're merely trolling by adopting the gimmick of an uninformed Fox News junky who has been living in a nuclear bomb shelter for the last 6 years. In which case, you hooked me, good job on flamebait sir.
 
2014-04-24 11:58:22 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: xria: Corvus: czetie: Clinton would be the ultimate "business as usual" president. And by business as usual I mean access for the lobbyists, favors for the donors, more power for the establishment, politics over policies, and continuing the same policies as previous administrations that even many of us who voted for Obama condemn, such as surveillance at home and drone strikes abroad. She's a centrist, but above all she's a statist.

She's a complete Machine product Beltway insider, and she won't reform anything that got her into power, including a tax code that's rife with favors and exemptions; a thoroughly corrupt campaign system; and an absence of serious ethical overview of the political class.

And yet, I would still vote for over any Republican you can name who has a serious shot at the GOP nomination, because while Hillary will sell the country to the rich and powerful, they will give away to their rich friends because fark you, that's why.

I think this is funny because when Bill Clinton ran the first time Hillary was considered the idealistic liberal and now people have the totally opposite belief.

It is funny like when Clinton was President she was undermining the office by being a powerful lawyer with lots of connections in the legal establishment, inviting allegations of favoritism and corruption by the executive favoring her connections. Now after more years in various legislative and executive roles, she is a nobody who only has a shot at being President because of who her husband is.

You're an asshole and an idiot for ignoring her performance of Secretary of State, unless you're merely trolling by adopting the gimmick of an uninformed Fox News junky who has been living in a nuclear bomb shelter for the last 6 years. In which case, you hooked me, good job on flamebait sir.


Sorry I'm drunk and didn't parse that you truly are mocking those said assholes originally.
 
2014-04-25 12:33:46 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: At least Rand would be highly entertaining.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-25 12:47:26 AM  

Corvus: whidbey: People hated her husband, and hate her. Not just lilbertarians, either. Many of us would like to see some fresh blood for 2016 like they did when they ran Obama. Warren is the best choice. Clinton is a very lazy oligarchical choice where it's just going to cause so much bullshiat, it's going to make Obama's term look like a dog cart ride. She's really better off out of the picture. Of course, reality is probably going to dictate otherwise. But I sure hope not. I really don't want a return to 2000 where I punted the system with my vote.

Yes and they hate Obama to and they will hate whoever the candidate is for 2016. The problem is not Hilary. It's the partisanship and attacks that the GOP does for whoever is nominee.

You think if Hillary is not nominated the Republicans are going to go easy on the person?

I would rather someone vetted then someone not. New issues are a lot bigger deal than 30 year old ones.


Well of course!  I mean, the Dems nominated Obama instead of Hillary, and look at how easily the Republicans got along with him!

Hillary has made an amazing number of enemies, and I don't mean the Republicans.  She was always the 'bad cop' of the pair.  I'd rather see a President that could work well with Congress, but as long as the Republicans refuse to work well with anybody, what's the point?
 
2014-04-25 02:19:21 AM  
I think Rand Paul would make a good president, but only in the way Zaphod Beeblebrox made a good president.
 
2014-04-25 02:19:25 AM  

JolobinSmokin: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

She scares me a lot less when I factor in who she would pick for the supreme court, because leftist causes would be safe.


Yeah, if a republican wins in 2016, they'll likely get the chance to replace one or two of Ginsbert, Kennedy, and Breyer.  You think the supreme court is bad now?  We'll be screwed for at least a generation if President Paul (or whoever) picks their replacements.
 
2014-04-25 07:13:42 AM  

Corvus: Ow! That was my feelings!: Marijuana policy is going to be a major sleeper issue in 2016. Should be interesting.

Thank god some people will focus on the "unimportant" issues like healthcare coverage, education, war, civil rights, income inequality. Instead of the huge important issue of "I want to smoke pot easier".


The fact that you can be given a longer jail sentence for drug possession than for murder, plus all the money we waste on incarcerating non-violent offenders, is important to some people.
 
2014-04-25 07:16:51 AM  

Corvus: whidbey: Though I would agree Clinton is a terrible choice. Way too much baggage.

Like what exactly?

Most of the "baggage" I can think of is Republican generated BS like Benghazi and the stupid stuff done as attacks during the Bill Clinton administration and those have not much substance and people are tired of them.

She is actually very vetted there is not going to be anything "new" on her because they have gone after her so much already.


Pro censorship? Supports the same surveillance state as Obama and Bush?
 
2014-04-25 07:27:09 AM  

mcnguyen: JolobinSmokin: Marcus Aurelius: Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.

She scares me a lot less when I factor in who she would pick for the supreme court, because leftist causes would be safe.

Yeah, if a republican wins in 2016, they'll likely get the chance to replace one or two of Ginsbert, Kennedy, and Breyer.  You think the supreme court is bad now?  We'll be screwed for at least a generation if President Paul (or whoever) picks their replacements.


 Coincidentally, this is the exact same argument my partisan Republican friends were using to support Romney last cycle; "Vote for the guy you don't really support because SCOTUS appointments".
 
2014-04-25 08:08:03 AM  

Mister Buttons: The Rent is too Damn High


Pardon me for saying this, but I don't think that guy is a supporter of an unfetterred private economy.
 
2014-04-25 10:43:10 AM  
Huh....so a candidate who's been on the stump for the past year is polling better than one who hasn't yet announced her candidacy.


Who'd have thunk it?
 
2014-04-25 11:45:23 AM  
We all are stoned here you know.  AND we've been voting for RON Paul for like... two decades.  I think everyone just thinks it's a typo.
 
2014-04-25 06:08:35 PM  

flondrix: Mercutio74: That being said, I really don't want HIllary to be the president of the US.

Since when has been a matter of voting for a candidate you actually want, instead of picking which of two candidates you hate the least?


Wasn't the case in the past 10 years.

Mad?
 
Displayed 132 of 132 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report