3 ms·

These are tactical decisions he is making in an effort to win the presidency. If he could gain just one more vote by saying the exact opposite of everything ab

by rsync 11y ago

These are tactical decisions he is making in an effort to win the presidency. If he could gain just one more vote by saying the exact opposite of everything above, he would do it. And so would "your guy". Or gal. Even if this assertion of mine is note technically true, you should behave as if it is.

adventured 11y ago
I believe that accusation is plainly wrong. Paul has long represented these, and similar liberty oriented positions. He has a strong libertarian ideology bent and is mostly consistent about it. These are not positions you take in order to win the Presidency, and he does not have a realistic shot at winning. That will go to eg Bush or Clinton, both of which are pro war, and pro surveillance.
- balls187 11y ago
  >He has a strong libertarian ideology bent and is mostly consistent about it and is mostly consistent about it. Except when it comes to: A woman's right to choose Gay Marriage Legalizing Recreational Drugs US Foreign Policy He is a politician and as he is being groomed for making a run for presidency he is backpeddling. Which is consistent with every president in modern US history.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Those statements are clearly wrong. 1) He's against the present interventionist foreign policy. he has been extremely clear about that for years. 2) He's in favor of states being left to decide for themselves about drug legalization. If Texas wants to support the legalization of pot, his position is that that is up to Texas voters. 2a) Paul constantly makes the point that the war on drugs has been a disaster, and constantly hits against the mass incarceration system we have today. He makes the point non-stop. He points out the unfairness of our current system, such that it's putting black people in prison for the same things white people are getting away with (drug use). 3) He's in favor of states being left to choose about both abortion and gay marriage. 4) He is not in favor of any federal legislation to outlaw either abortion or gay marriage. Paul has said he would not attempt to change present laws on abortion.
    - balls187 11y ago
      > Those statements are clearly wrong. If that's the case, feel free to edit his wikipedia page (the source for my statements) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Pau...
      - adventured 11y ago
        Fortunately his wikipedia page confirms what I said. He's against our interventionist foreign policy: - "He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq" - "Paul also spoke against U.S. overseas military bases" - "During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is 'killing more terrorists than it creates'" - "Paul believes that when the United States goes to war, Congress must declare war as mandated by the United States Constitution" More examples confirming what I said: "Paul believes the issue of medical marijuana is a states' rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere" "Paul was one of three U.S. senators in 2015 to introduce a bipartisan bill, CARERS, that would legalize medical marijuana under federal law" - "Paul has expressed doubt about the fairness of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines" - "He believes that these laws are applied disproportionately to African Americans, arguing that non-violent drug offenses have contributed to a third of African American males being unable to vote" "Paul supported a Kentucky bill that would restore voting rights to felons after a five-year waiting period" "In a 2014 op-ed in Time magazine, Paul criticized the increased militarization of law enforcement" "Paul's staffers say he believes [on gay marriage] the issue should be left to the states to decide" "He has said he thought that the Supreme Court's ruling in Windsor v. United States, which struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage at a federal level (as between a man and a woman), was appropriate"
        balls187 11y ago
        Legalizing Recreational Drugs Use is not the same as Legalizing Medical Marijuana Use. Second, we're both cherry picking sections from that article to make our point. Except I'm not trying to defending his political ideologies, just pointing out he is like every other major politician who has attempted a run for the presidency: says one thing, but in order to shore up their base, will say something else. One isn't a libertarian if they simply say "let the states figure it out." That's the ideology of small-government focused conservatives. A libertarian's point of view would be "Government (federal, state, city) should stay out of lives of people w.r.t (drugs, guns, bedroom). None of what you've written suggests he has that mentality.
sliverstorm 11y ago
I think if he was shooting for popular appeal, he would champion a much different platform.
randomname2 11y ago
I don't believe this is true. These are highly unpopular positions among the republican base.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > These are highly unpopular positions among the republican base. There's a number of states with open primaries now, so its not implausible that Paul's Presidential tactics involve trying to bring non-Republicans (particularly libertarian non-Republicans) in to vote for him in the Republican primaries. Or to secure support outside the Republican base and then be able to make an electability argument to the primary electorate.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  True, but they're popular outside the republican base, and Paul has rightly calculated that the base consists of too many older white social conservatives for the party's long-term health. I don't think he expects to get the nomination for President on his first attempt, and I'm not sure he wants a cabinet post either. Rather, he wants to position himself as a national figure for a more serious run in a future election cycle by laying out a more libertarian-themed party platform now. For example, he's also taking efforts to distance himself from attempts to set abortion policy at a federal level, which he rightly perceives as a liability for the national party. Although it's an unlikely prospect, I wonder if the internal conflicts in the GOP might manifest as an actual split. Ironically enough the passionate, fire-breathing Tea Party types, who you would expect to be primarily concenred with shrinking government, are actually most likely to support more aggressive foreign policy, expansion and intensification of domestic law enforcement, and hold a hardline attitude on social conservative issues like gay marriage or abortion (these are my anecdotal observations FWIW).
  - 13years 11y ago
    There really is no more Tea Party. It was co-opted by the establishment. The original Tea Party was far more libertarian and stood against all those things you list.
rrss1122 11y ago
I wouldn't look at it so cynically. The man might be in the Republican Party, but like his father, he is a man of personal ideals, not one to tow the party line.
- Frondo 11y ago
  I just wish his ideals weren't so retrograde. This is the same guy who said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act.
  - gortok 11y ago
    I'm not a fan of all of Rand Paul's positions; but the reason why he said that was that it prohibited businesses from serving people they don't want to serve. The instance he gave was the Jewish Store owner that would be forced to serve a neo-nazi. The Civil Rights act keeps business owners from truly owning whom they can serve; which unfortunately keeps an essential part of social pressure from happening. Imagine if businesses could refuse services to anyone who didn't vaccinate their children? Or refuse service to people who are bigots? Part of the issue with the CRA is the issue with all sorts of legislation: In its zeal to right wrongs, it has plenty of unintended consequences that have side-effects that can't be forseen.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Well, right, because business owners perpetuated structural racism. If they'd all decided that black folks' money was as good as whites', we wouldn't have needed the government to take action. The hypothetical of the Jewish store owner being forced to serve a neo-nazi is pretty weak, when the law addressed a real problem (private business owners' personal racism) that affected millions of actual people over the course of their lives.
      - gortok 11y ago
        Reading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue. Thank you for responding.
cpursley 11y ago
I'm not sure I agree. Rand has been pretty consistent with his libertarian(ish) based belief system.
x0x0 11y ago
He's not seriously running for president; he's running for his next book deal. And this is nothing but a Rand Paul fundraiser. A serious person, instead of being a showboating idiot, would realize fillibusters accomplish virtually nothing and instead do the serious, real, hard work of building a coalition to advance a cause. Unfortunately, that neither makes good tv nor for good book deals. viz his "evolution" -- ie complete flip flop -- about drones http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-pauls-drone-evolution-now-complete http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-pauls-drone-evo...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > He's not seriously running for president; he's running for his next book deal. And this is nothing but a Rand Paul fundraiser. A serious person, instead of being a showboating idiot, would realize fillibusters accomplish virtually nothing and instead do the serious, real, hard work of building a coalition to advance a cause. Unfortunately, that neither makes good tv nor for good book deals. Of course, running for President has the same similarity of need with "Good TV" as trying to get good book deals does, so I'm not sure how anything he is currently doing is inconsistent with seriously running for President. Effectively governing might be related to serious, real, hard work of building a coalition to advance a cause, but effective governing and running for President are, unfortunately, not particularly related to each other.
sdoering 11y ago
Thumbsup - another cynic regarding the political theater. Thanks...

by rsync 11y ago

adventured 11y ago

I believe that accusation is plainly wrong. Paul has long represented these, and similar liberty oriented positions. He has a strong libertarian ideology bent and is mostly consistent about it. These are not positions you take in order to win the Presidency, and he does not have a realistic shot at winning. That will go to eg Bush or Clinton, both of which are pro war, and pro surveillance.

balls187 11y ago
>He has a strong libertarian ideology bent and is mostly consistent about it and is mostly consistent about it. Except when it comes to: A woman's right to choose Gay Marriage Legalizing Recreational Drugs US Foreign Policy He is a politician and as he is being groomed for making a run for presidency he is backpeddling. Which is consistent with every president in modern US history.
- adventured 11y ago
  Those statements are clearly wrong. 1) He's against the present interventionist foreign policy. he has been extremely clear about that for years. 2) He's in favor of states being left to decide for themselves about drug legalization. If Texas wants to support the legalization of pot, his position is that that is up to Texas voters. 2a) Paul constantly makes the point that the war on drugs has been a disaster, and constantly hits against the mass incarceration system we have today. He makes the point non-stop. He points out the unfairness of our current system, such that it's putting black people in prison for the same things white people are getting away with (drug use). 3) He's in favor of states being left to choose about both abortion and gay marriage. 4) He is not in favor of any federal legislation to outlaw either abortion or gay marriage. Paul has said he would not attempt to change present laws on abortion.
  - balls187 11y ago
    > Those statements are clearly wrong. If that's the case, feel free to edit his wikipedia page (the source for my statements) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Pau...
    - adventured 11y ago
      Fortunately his wikipedia page confirms what I said. He's against our interventionist foreign policy: - "He says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq" - "Paul also spoke against U.S. overseas military bases" - "During his 2010 Senate campaign Paul questioned the idea that U.S. Middle East policy is 'killing more terrorists than it creates'" - "Paul believes that when the United States goes to war, Congress must declare war as mandated by the United States Constitution" More examples confirming what I said: "Paul believes the issue of medical marijuana is a states' rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere" "Paul was one of three U.S. senators in 2015 to introduce a bipartisan bill, CARERS, that would legalize medical marijuana under federal law" - "Paul has expressed doubt about the fairness of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines" - "He believes that these laws are applied disproportionately to African Americans, arguing that non-violent drug offenses have contributed to a third of African American males being unable to vote" "Paul supported a Kentucky bill that would restore voting rights to felons after a five-year waiting period" "In a 2014 op-ed in Time magazine, Paul criticized the increased militarization of law enforcement" "Paul's staffers say he believes [on gay marriage] the issue should be left to the states to decide" "He has said he thought that the Supreme Court's ruling in Windsor v. United States, which struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage at a federal level (as between a man and a woman), was appropriate"
      - balls187 11y ago
        Legalizing Recreational Drugs Use is not the same as Legalizing Medical Marijuana Use. Second, we're both cherry picking sections from that article to make our point. Except I'm not trying to defending his political ideologies, just pointing out he is like every other major politician who has attempted a run for the presidency: says one thing, but in order to shore up their base, will say something else. One isn't a libertarian if they simply say "let the states figure it out." That's the ideology of small-government focused conservatives. A libertarian's point of view would be "Government (federal, state, city) should stay out of lives of people w.r.t (drugs, guns, bedroom). None of what you've written suggests he has that mentality.

sliverstorm 11y ago

I think if he was shooting for popular appeal, he would champion a much different platform.

randomname2 11y ago

I don't believe this is true. These are highly unpopular positions among the republican base.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> These are highly unpopular positions among the republican base. There's a number of states with open primaries now, so its not implausible that Paul's Presidential tactics involve trying to bring non-Republicans (particularly libertarian non-Republicans) in to vote for him in the Republican primaries. Or to secure support outside the Republican base and then be able to make an electability argument to the primary electorate.
anigbrowl 11y ago
True, but they're popular outside the republican base, and Paul has rightly calculated that the base consists of too many older white social conservatives for the party's long-term health. I don't think he expects to get the nomination for President on his first attempt, and I'm not sure he wants a cabinet post either. Rather, he wants to position himself as a national figure for a more serious run in a future election cycle by laying out a more libertarian-themed party platform now. For example, he's also taking efforts to distance himself from attempts to set abortion policy at a federal level, which he rightly perceives as a liability for the national party. Although it's an unlikely prospect, I wonder if the internal conflicts in the GOP might manifest as an actual split. Ironically enough the passionate, fire-breathing Tea Party types, who you would expect to be primarily concenred with shrinking government, are actually most likely to support more aggressive foreign policy, expansion and intensification of domestic law enforcement, and hold a hardline attitude on social conservative issues like gay marriage or abortion (these are my anecdotal observations FWIW).
- 13years 11y ago
  There really is no more Tea Party. It was co-opted by the establishment. The original Tea Party was far more libertarian and stood against all those things you list.

rrss1122 11y ago

I wouldn't look at it so cynically. The man might be in the Republican Party, but like his father, he is a man of personal ideals, not one to tow the party line.

Frondo 11y ago
I just wish his ideals weren't so retrograde. This is the same guy who said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act.
- gortok 11y ago
  I'm not a fan of all of Rand Paul's positions; but the reason why he said that was that it prohibited businesses from serving people they don't want to serve. The instance he gave was the Jewish Store owner that would be forced to serve a neo-nazi. The Civil Rights act keeps business owners from truly owning whom they can serve; which unfortunately keeps an essential part of social pressure from happening. Imagine if businesses could refuse services to anyone who didn't vaccinate their children? Or refuse service to people who are bigots? Part of the issue with the CRA is the issue with all sorts of legislation: In its zeal to right wrongs, it has plenty of unintended consequences that have side-effects that can't be forseen.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Well, right, because business owners perpetuated structural racism. If they'd all decided that black folks' money was as good as whites', we wouldn't have needed the government to take action. The hypothetical of the Jewish store owner being forced to serve a neo-nazi is pretty weak, when the law addressed a real problem (private business owners' personal racism) that affected millions of actual people over the course of their lives.
    - gortok 11y ago
      Reading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue. Thank you for responding.

cpursley 11y ago

I'm not sure I agree. Rand has been pretty consistent with his libertarian(ish) based belief system.

x0x0 11y ago

He's not seriously running for president; he's running for his next book deal. And this is nothing but a Rand Paul fundraiser. A serious person, instead of being a showboating idiot, would realize fillibusters accomplish virtually nothing and instead do the serious, real, hard work of building a coalition to advance a cause. Unfortunately, that neither makes good tv nor for good book deals. viz his "evolution" -- ie complete flip flop -- about drones http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-pauls-drone-evolution-now-complete http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-pauls-drone-evo...

dragonwriter 11y ago
> He's not seriously running for president; he's running for his next book deal. And this is nothing but a Rand Paul fundraiser. A serious person, instead of being a showboating idiot, would realize fillibusters accomplish virtually nothing and instead do the serious, real, hard work of building a coalition to advance a cause. Unfortunately, that neither makes good tv nor for good book deals. Of course, running for President has the same similarity of need with "Good TV" as trying to get good book deals does, so I'm not sure how anything he is currently doing is inconsistent with seriously running for President. Effectively governing might be related to serious, real, hard work of building a coalition to advance a cause, but effective governing and running for President are, unfortunately, not particularly related to each other.

sdoering 11y ago

Thumbsup - another cynic regarding the political theater. Thanks...