See this poll on: https://poll.fm/5750169/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Rand Paul is winning? Really? Have people thought through the ramifications of health care being a *right*? Sure, his imagery is over the top, but if you are going to vote for him you need to explain how health care can be a right if someone else is not forced to provide said health care. The critical term here is "a right."
My position on these (Moore and Malkin) awards is that they should be more than just insane blathering. They should encapsulate a real position that is present in the party. Hopefully this would be on an issue of central importance rather than a fringe issue. This is why I don't really like the stuff about Israel. Rabid fans of Israel straddle the American political divide.
This also why I voted for Rand Paul. What he said there is, no joke, the Libertarian critique of taxation. He just extended it into the medical discussion. It is not an accident that he used all this talk about force and slavery. This is the tea in which he has been steeped. His statement is perfect because it is both insane and a capsule description of a faction in the Republican party that is currently ascendant. This is the framework that they use when they think about taxes. It is not surprising to see it extended in other ways.
Rand Paul (who is winning as I write this) is worth a chuckle but not much more than that. Many of the other quotes are bad, sick or poisonous but John Yoo's opinion is widely shared on the right and is overtly dangerous. That's why he got my vote.
Ok, so here's my rationale for voting for Rand Paul. To me, it seems that, aside from Rand Paul, the comments fall into two camps: Insane neocon rants (e.g., Mamet, Yoo, and Trump) or insane commentary on social issues (e.g., Gingrich, Driscoll and Lopez). You can possibly differentiate further around the prominence of Israel in the neocon comments (Abrams), or between religious and non-religious (Driscoll vs. Newt), but these comments all have one thing in common: They espouse positions that we have all heard before. It's either you're with us or you are a treasonous pussy (neocons) or you're with us or you are hellbound or a freeloader.
But Rand Paul takes off in an entirely new direction. His comment is like a triple-dog-dare on Newt's ludicrous comment on the social order. I mean, come on, when has anyone ever thought that a doctor in the US would be able to make the leap from a mandate for universal coverage (which likely would increase his patient roster and his bottom line) to his own conscription and forced slavery!