T Nation

CPAC Straw Poll Results


#1


Winner: Rand Paul (for the third year in a Row)

2) Scott Walker (21.4%)

3) Sen. Ted Cruz (11.5%)

4) Dr. Ben Carson (11%)

5) Jeb Bush (8%)

Sen.. Rick Santorum, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and real estate mogul Donald Trump, rounded out the list of 17 potential candidates.

Some thoughts:

1) It's beginning to shape up to look like 2011-2012 again for the GOP.

2) The GOP Primaries will be very contentious again.

3) The DEMS are probably thrilled.

4) Should we get used to saying "President Clinton" again?

What do you guys think?

Mufasa


#2

Looking at this, if I’m Hillary Clinton, I’m picking out new drapes for the Oval Office.

Rand Paul isn’t presidential timber for a number of reasons, but the best proof the “conservatives” at CPAC have lost their minds is the fact that Ben Carson came in fourth. A doctor with no experience in politics, a limited portfolio of topics on which he can credibly opine, no executive experience, a plagiarist, and a deer in the headlights when a mike gets put in front of his face.

I said it in another thread - the GOP was handed the gift of a generation, and they are poised ro blow it, thanks ro their Jacobins.


#3

Rand Paul will pull in the “independents” and other fringe voters.
Scott Walker’s Wisconsin is looking foolish in comparision to Minnesota.
they call me the “Cruzer” is actually Canadian…nuff said.
Carson may be a good physician, but the Business of the US is Business.

Good enough ?

oh, and yes. They did have a generation handed to them.
They will pull Defeat from the Hands of Victory…sigHeil !


#4

“…Scott Walker’s Wisconsin is looking foolish in comparison to Minnesota…”

Curious, because I really don’t know, Dirk.

In what way?

Mufasa


#5

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Rand Paul isn’t presidential timber for a number of reasons

[/quote]

I like Rand as a candidate as his political views closely align with mine. The one thing that is going to hurt him the most is his opposition to one part of the civil rights act that he has expressed openly in the past. That being the belief that private business owners should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. For that stance, he will be labeled a bigot and a racist, unjustly so. Its a nuanced position about property rights that the average voter is to stupid, or apathetic to comprehend and will become an issue for him if his presidential campaign takes off.


#6

“…the belief that private business owners should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason…”

Paul is a smart man.

While it may in fact be nuanced and must be taken in some kind of context…he HAS to understand why even reasonable people would take serious pause with such a position.

Mufasa


#7

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
"…the belief that private business owners should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason…"

Paul is a smart man.

While it may in fact be nuanced and must be taken in some kind of context…he HAS to understand why even reasonable people would take serious pause with such a position.

Mufasa[/quote]

Why would a reasonable person have a problem with that? Having a problem with that would seem to be prima facie evidence that person is not reasonable. I’m not a fan of everything about the guy, but that belief is 100% right. If that belief causes a candidate to lose an election, then we probably need to start thinking about alternatives to elections.


#8

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
"…the belief that private business owners should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason…"

Paul is a smart man.

While it may in fact be nuanced and must be taken in some kind of context…he HAS to understand why even reasonable people would take serious pause with such a position.

Mufasa[/quote]

Why would a reasonable person have a problem with that? Having a problem with that would seem to be prima facie evidence that person is not reasonable. I’m not fan of everything about the guy, but that belief is 100% right. If that belief causes a candidate to lose an election, then we probably need to start thinking about alternatives to elections.[/quote]

I’m open to hearing why denying service to anyone for any reason is in fact reasonable.

Otherwise, it’s a position that I will continue to have concerns with.

Mufasa


#9

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
"…the belief that private business owners should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason…"

Paul is a smart man.

While it may in fact be nuanced and must be taken in some kind of context…he HAS to understand why even reasonable people would take serious pause with such a position.

Mufasa[/quote]

Why would a reasonable person have a problem with that? Having a problem with that would seem to be prima facie evidence that person is not reasonable. I’m not fan of everything about the guy, but that belief is 100% right. If that belief causes a candidate to lose an election, then we probably need to start thinking about alternatives to elections.[/quote]

I’m open to hearing why denying service to anyone for any reason is in fact reasonable.

Otherwise, it’s a position that I will continue to have concerns with.

Mufasa
[/quote]

The belief that private business owners(as well as homeowners, etc.) should be able to deny service to anyone, for any reason, is very reasonable. The business owner OWNS the business, and no other entity should have any say in how it’s run.

If a homeless man shows up on your neighbor’s porch and is allowed to stay in his living room for a night, should you be legally obliged to allow him to stay in your house the next night?


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Otherwise, it’s a position that I will continue to have concerns with.

Mufasa
[/quote]

I’m curious as to your concerns.

I’m aware of the obvious, however I still think that most business owners who intended on staying in business would not risk offending potential clientele.

It can issues arising in certain locales, however there would probably be issues there regardless.


#12

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#13

Again…

I’m open to hearing why denying service to anyone for any reason is in fact reasonable.

If this is Rand Paul’s position; and many feel that it a reasonable position; reasonable people will listen then draw their own conclusions.

Mufasa


#14

(By the way; this is a reasonable discussion, because it is obvious that Rand Paul will be a major player in the 2015/16 Election Cycle).

Anyone surprised that Christie didn’t even rank among the CPAC attendees?

Mufasa


#15

(Damn…just realized I’m using WAY too many “reasonables”…!)

Mufasa


#16

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looking at this, if I’m Hillary Clinton, I’m picking out new drapes for the Oval Office.

Rand Paul isn’t presidential timber for a number of reasons, but the best proof the “conservatives” at CPAC have lost their minds is the fact that Ben Carson came in fourth. A doctor with no experience in politics, a limited portfolio of topics on which he can credibly opine, no executive experience, a plagiarist, and a deer in the headlights when a mike gets put in front of his face.

I said it in another thread - the GOP was handed the gift of a generation, and they are poised ro blow it, thanks ro their Jacobins.[/quote]

Who are the “Jacobins” exactly? How does their Jacobinism manifest itself?


#17

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Rand Paul will pull in the “independents” and other fringe voters.
Scott Walker’s Wisconsin is looking foolish in comparision to Minnesota.
they call me the “Cruzer” is actually Canadian…nuff said.
Carson may be a good physician, but the Business of the US is Business.

Good enough ?

oh, and yes. They did have a generation handed to them.
They will pull Defeat from the Hands of Victory…sigHeil ![/quote]

Rand Paul won’t appeal to independents, not the kind that decides elections in this country. He comes off asna negative government guy, amd they aren’t interested in that kind of ideology, amd never have been. There is a world of difference between federal overreach and thinking government is an inherent negative. Paul preaches the latter, and gets awfully close to “black helicopters” paranoia when he does.

Also, he is uneven amd erratic on foreign policy. Voters like someone who looks calm, savvy, and in charge. Paul comes off as twitchy and uninformed, and in trying to not show his cards, he hedges and qualifies his statements very poorly.

As a test run, imagine a conservative president is presiding and he needs to find someone to run the Department of State. Would he pick Paul? That hypothetical is laughable. Of course not.

And, try as he might, he can’t run from his moonbat father and his goofy beliefs


#18

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again…

I’m open to hearing why denying service to anyone for any reason is in fact reasonable.

If this is Rand Paul’s position; and many feel that it a reasonable position; reasonable people will listen then draw their own conclusions.

Mufasa
[/quote]

It’s a well known position of the Ayn Rand / libertarian right. But the media will either crown or disrobe Rand Paul. I’d say disrobe because he’s not of the socialist left.


#19

Translation: “I believe the government should, at the point of a gun if need be, force Nick, Push, or myself, to do its bidding with our own private property in regards to every respect of every commercial transaction with others.”

Right?

Bullshit.

Wrong…and wrong again.

Why is there often a “Right/Left”/“Black/White” dichotomy argued and falsely created (with a HELLUVA lot of hyperbole added like you just did, Push) when discussing Government?

As TB pointed out (and I agree) there is a HUGE difference between Government Overreach (which we all have to deal with on a daily basis) and Government being an inherent evil with anything and everything it does.

Set your business up in the middle of, say, Mogadishu, and get back with me on how “bad” things are here.

Mufasa


#20

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again…

I’m open to hearing why denying service to anyone for any reason is in fact reasonable.

If this is Rand Paul’s position; and many feel that it a reasonable position; reasonable people will listen then draw their own conclusions.

Mufasa
[/quote]

It’s not reasonable - as to race. I wouldn’t go so far as to say " for any reason." But given our history with race, no one should be able to with respect to places of public accommodation. To do so would be unreasonable - why? Because it isn’t reasonable to liberate and emancipated a race of people and then confine them socially and culturally to a place of denial of full participation.

This is where libertarians - again - go off tracks. They fetishize rights and ignore responsibilities. The remedy - anti-discrimination laws - have a Burkean theme: since you can’t do the right thing within (on your own), it will be done from without (laws).

Paul tried to fix his predictable libertarian take on this issue, but no one actually believes he supports the Civil Rights Act.