4 ms·

>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 cho

>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.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Leaving up to the states to decide isn't freedom-oriented. It just kicks the can down the road. It absolves him of the responsibility of taking a stand on any of those issues.
  - wallacrw 11y ago
    False. Your influence as a voter is much greater at the state and local level than the federal level. On an individual basis, you have much more freedom to make your own choices and have them honored if the vote is left to your state or local government.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Not false. "Gay people should have the same freedom to marry the people they love as straight people." That's a freedom-oriented stance. "Whether gay people have the freedom to marry is up to ... someone else!" That's a cowardly dodge.
      - steve19 11y ago
        By your logic anyone who does not support the United Nations having binding legal powers to force the entire world to allow gay marriage, and the means to enforce compliance, is anti freedom and anti gay. freedom is partly self determination. not having laws stuffed down our throats by Washington is freedom (it could be marriage today, but more anti drug laws tomorrow)
        Frondo 11y ago
        Oh, sure. I'm all about self-determination. Know how much gay people marrying each other affects your life, if you're not gay and have no plans to marry someone of the same sex? Zero. It doesn't affect you. Whether gay people marry one another doesn't affect a lot of the people who oppose gay marriage, because it's an entirely private matter. Apply the same for a lot of other issues. If you're a business owner, and enjoy the benefits the law gives to business owners, then you play by a slightly different set of rules; you don't get maximal freedom to choose your customers, you have limits in some general ways once you open a business to the public. That set of rules changes from time to time.
- x0x0 11y ago
  S.583 - A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/583 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/583 Sponsor: Rand Paul

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.
Frondo 11y ago
Leaving up to the states to decide isn't freedom-oriented. It just kicks the can down the road. It absolves him of the responsibility of taking a stand on any of those issues.
- wallacrw 11y ago
  False. Your influence as a voter is much greater at the state and local level than the federal level. On an individual basis, you have much more freedom to make your own choices and have them honored if the vote is left to your state or local government.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Not false. "Gay people should have the same freedom to marry the people they love as straight people." That's a freedom-oriented stance. "Whether gay people have the freedom to marry is up to ... someone else!" That's a cowardly dodge.
    - steve19 11y ago
      By your logic anyone who does not support the United Nations having binding legal powers to force the entire world to allow gay marriage, and the means to enforce compliance, is anti freedom and anti gay. freedom is partly self determination. not having laws stuffed down our throats by Washington is freedom (it could be marriage today, but more anti drug laws tomorrow)
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Oh, sure. I'm all about self-determination. Know how much gay people marrying each other affects your life, if you're not gay and have no plans to marry someone of the same sex? Zero. It doesn't affect you. Whether gay people marry one another doesn't affect a lot of the people who oppose gay marriage, because it's an entirely private matter. Apply the same for a lot of other issues. If you're a business owner, and enjoy the benefits the law gives to business owners, then you play by a slightly different set of rules; you don't get maximal freedom to choose your customers, you have limits in some general ways once you open a business to the public. That set of rules changes from time to time.
x0x0 11y ago
S.583 - A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/583 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/583 Sponsor: Rand Paul