Rand Paul wins KY Senate primary

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
1. When Obama the marxist got elected and started appointing czars and taking over private industry and demonizing our very way of life - capitalism. "You've made enough money already"
2. Obama and the radicals he surrounds himself with

I think spidey07 either has stopped taking his meds, or needs a dosage adjustment, because they aren't working obviously.

-Marxist? Really? I missed the part where Obama nationalized that banks. Oh wait, he didn't Or where he mandated a public option for health care. Oh wait, he didn't.

-Czars? - Really? Clueless again spidey. From wiki's article on czars in the US government (first number is # of positions, 2nd number is # of appointees)
Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 1 1
George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 2 3
Bill Clinton 1993–2001 7 10
George W. Bush 2001–2009 35 47
Barack Obama 2009– 38 8

Looks like you good buddy Bush really started the trend. Don't really remember you complaining about it then. Obama is just following along.

So sorry to blow your (attempted) points to try and justify your irrational hatred.

-Radicals? You are more radical then Obama.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
the czars thing has been pointed out a thousand times. they dont care they just want to be mad that the black man is keeping them down.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Ah, it's OK to run a huge deficit (AKA Bush), but not OK to run a really huge deficit (Obama).

That makes a lot of sense :rolleyes:

Which is funny. Since the only reason for the really huge deficit (Obama) is because of the massive fuckups of the previous administration (Bush) that caused so many economic problems that in order to try to avert them some unfortunate things had to be done. Now if only we could have an actual liberal in the White House instead of a moderate who leans slightly right like Obama. Maybe some shit would actually get done correctly.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
You can't paint any political group with a broad brush. The dems in particular are a diverse party consisting of some liberals, some union supporters who are otherwise not liberal, and some minorities who are socially conservative. Their base consists of union members, low income minorities, and highly paid urban professionals.

The tea party is a diverse group, but on the whole, polling shows that it is basically a very conservative group. I can see the tea party as being perhaps more diverse thant he republicaion party, but not more so, and probably less, than the democrats as a party.

Saying a group is diverse doesn't really mean a lot, because every group is diverse. The real question is HOW diverse.

- wolf

I don't disagree with this.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Wait a minute, I thought family dynasties were bad? You know, like Kennedys and Bushes?

Yes, they are, and you also know full well that Ron and Rand do not represent a dynasty, nor the sort of corrupt lunacy inherent in the Kennedy and Bush families.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Yes, they are, and you also know full well that Ron and Rand do not represent a dynasty, nor the sort of corrupt lunacy inherent in the Kennedy and Bush families.

You're right, the Paul family represents a far-right lunacy that we've never seen before.
I didn't expect you to be consistent about family dynasties, it's only for the other guys.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
I didn't expect you to be consistent about family dynasties, it's only for the other guys.

Wait, you think the Pauls are a dynasty?

HAHA, and its the "other side" that has lunacy? Did you notice that MOTFbane pointed out dynasties of BOTH parties? lol, thanks for the laugh
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Where is Kentucky at in the ratio of what it gives to the federal government and what it gets back?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The Paul's are hardly a "dynasty"...nice try though
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us somewhat ask and lets make this into a testable hypothesis.

If Rand Paul was just some common Joe nobody with no political experience at all, how can we explain the fact that he is starting at the top, and going for a Senate Seat that only one person among 99 others can hold at any one given time.

Does Rand Paul special qualification derive from the fact that he is a MD specializing in the eyes?

If not, I submit, political dynasty proved, Rand Paul sole special qualification derive solely from Paul bots, some what aided in KY by that fact that even Mitch McConnell could not win re election if he were running now.

Kentucky republicans may be demoralized at this turn of events, but rest assured, Kentucky democrats are thrilled to run against Rand Paul as a Goldwater loser.
 
Last edited:

jacc1234

Senior member
Sep 3, 2005
392
0
0
Where is Kentucky at in the ratio of what it gives to the federal government and what it gets back?

They are 9th for federal funding received. The latest data shows they receive a $1.51 in federal funds for each tax dollar they pay.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
They are 9th for federal funding received. The latest data shows they receive a $1.51 in federal funds for each tax dollar they pay.

Anyone think that Mr Paul and the Tea Party will campaign on giving back the extra federal funds the state receives to show they are serious about reducing the size of government and federal government spending?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
They are 9th for federal funding received. The latest data shows they receive a $1.51 in federal funds for each tax dollar they pay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I somehow doubt those figures, but KY certainly benefits by having an ex Senate majority leader and current Senate minority leader.

Anyone care to speculate on how much KY bacon a Senator Rand Paul clout would bring in?
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I somehow doubt those figures, but KY certainly benefits by having an ex Senate majority leader and current Senate minority leader.

Anyone care to speculate on how much KY bacon a Senator Rand Paul clout would bring in?

It should not matter because Mr Paul is against bacon.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Siddharha sez, "It should not matter because Mr Paul is against bacon."

In other words you say Rand, unlike his father Ron will not do everything to pursue Pork for his district, after all its Ron Paul's political track record. Seriously sir, do you still believe in the tooth fairy and all political libertarian propaganda?
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Siddharha sez, "It should not matter because Mr Paul is against bacon."

In other words you say Rand, unlike his father Ron will not do everything to pursue Pork for his district, after all its Ron Paul's political track record. Seriously sir, do you still believe in the tooth fairy and all political libertarian propaganda?

Tap your sarcasm meter.

The odds of the Tea Partiers and Mr Paul not accepting pork for Kentucky is as likely as my winning the Powerball lottery.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Tap your sarcasm meter.

The odds of the Tea Partiers and Mr Paul not accepting pork for Kentucky is as likely as my winning the Powerball lottery.

Guess you haven't read his platform. He seems to be a man of integrity so I'll trust him to do what he says.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Happy days oh happy day oh taking the country back are we! We The People will put this country back on track and we WILL take our country back.
.
.
Against all the attacks of "Rand's crazy ideas" he still won.

Rand Paul told his supporters:

I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back.

Uh-huh! Before you, Rand Paul and the rest of the tin foil beany tea party brigade get too too full of yourselves, you may want to remember that each of the two candidates for the Democratic nomination got far more votes than Rand Paul, despite the fact that a greater percentage of registered Republicans turned out than registered Democrats. :thumbsup:

“What surprised me?” said Kaine. “I didn't know this until my wife told me earlier today . . . the Kentucky primary drew more votes for the Democratic loser than for the Republican winner. That would not have been my prediction about that primary given how much it was hyped on the Republican side. And that tells me something about Democratic energy that is a little bit different than what some are saying.”

Kaine made his remarks during the question-and-answer period which followed a lunchtime speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Kaine, a former Virginia governor who was handpicked by President Obama to lead the DNC, used his speech to offer an upbeat assessment of Democratic prospects in November.

The statistic cited by Kaine is correct: Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo – the Democrat who lost the Senate nomination to Attorney General Jack Conway – garnered more votes than did Rand Paul, the Tea Party-backed Republican who won the GOP’s Senate nomination. Mongiardo’s vote total was 221,269; Paul’s vote total was 206,159.

Although the vote total statistic is correct, it is not the whole picture.

Registered Democrats in Kentucky outnumber Republicans by 573,139 voters.

Turnout, as a percentage of registered party voters, was actually higher in the Republican contest than in the Democratic contest, 33.6 percent as compared to 31.8 percent.

Don't ever link Palin with the tea party movement.

You may have to remind that dim witted twat, herself, about that. :rolleyes: