Why Rand Paul Would Destroy Hillary Clinton in 2016
There are many people on the right sphere of politics that would support Rand Paul as a Republican candidate in 2016. Many of those are the same people that supported Ron Paul in the 2012 elections.
That is not my case, as I do not like Rand Paul, Ron Paul or the Republican Party since they all represent the same ideologies : globalism, immigration, internationalism.
At least Rand Paul has the merit of not being a total socialist sellout, unlike the Democrats (and many Republicans).
That being said, it is evident for anyone without major cognitive impairment that Rand Paul would destroy Hillary Clinton if he was allowed to run in 2016.
Why rand Paul Would Win The 2016 Presidential Race Against Hillary Clinton
Without even talking about the political platform of each candidate (as they're nearly identical on all important issues), Rand Paul has two main advantages over Hillary Clinton or any Democratic candidate.
- Rand Paul is relatively anti-Establishment and is hated by his own party and the media
- Hillary Clinton has been in some form of government for the past 35 years and is backed by every Democrat and the mainstream media
Just by looking at these two facts, I can make a few observations on how a political opposition between these two candidates would turn out.
First observation : Hillary Clinton has been in government for the past 35 years (since before Reagan to give you an idea), what can she seriously propose now that she couldn't have done in her 35 years of parasitic public career ?
Second observation : Rand Paul is not part of the core of the Republican party, unlike Hillary Clinton who is adulated and has her campaign supported by the entirety of the Democratic constituents. What that means is that where Hillary Clinton will be held directly accountable for Eric Holder's criminal "incidents" or the meltdown of the socialist mongrel De Blasio, Rand Paul is not responsible for the pandering of Marco Rubio or the cholesterol levels of Chris Christie.
Third observation : Rand Paul has always been very clear of what his position was concerning the undesirable wings of his party (neo-cons), going so far as to attacked Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential elections on foreign policy. Can the same be said with Hillary Clinton and the radical left ?
Fourth observation : While his track record isn't completely irreproachable when it comes to immigration, American interests and national sovereignty, at least Rand Paul stayed clean of any foreign or globalist affiliations. Can the same be said for Hillary Clinton, married to the globalist Bill Clinton, friend of the foreigner Henry Kissinger and known Bilderberg member ?
The media has already started their campaign to glorify Hillary Clinton as a young (67 years old), dynamic (35 years in government without any notable achievement) and close to the people (especially those without a green card) candidate.
Rand Paul shouldn't fall in the trap of attacking Hillary Clinton on an ideological level, as he will inevitable face media ostracism his father and the Tea Party did before him.
Instead there is a very clear message that Rand Paul should endorse, one that has already been voiced by the American people despite the constant globalist media propaganda : 35 years is enough.