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 22
    More: Unlikely, Colorado, polls, reelection, Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, Mike Huckabee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  
•       •       •

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



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-24 01:50:05 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:16:50 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:51:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:39:06 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:49:22 PM  
2 votes:
Who would have been against the legalization of potijuana in Colorado? Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton?
2014-04-24 11:48:47 PM  
1 votes:
I would love to see President Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.

That would make me happy.
2014-04-24 07:10:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:46:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:34:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:27:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:59:50 PM  
1 votes:
Nobody's that excited for Hilary.

Plenty of people are horrified by Republicans enough to put her in the White House.
2014-04-24 02:55:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:54:16 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:44:29 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:41:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:31:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:01:19 PM  
1 votes:
Well he is a Republican so why should it be a surprise that he would beat a woman?
2014-04-24 01:55:11 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:05:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:00:17 PM  
1 votes:
Hillary scares me almost as much as the prospect of another Bush.  At least Rand would be highly entertaining.
2014-04-24 12:58:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:53:26 PM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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