Jump to content

Rand Paul, Could You Support This Guy?


Recommended Posts

He's set to announce on the 7th, next to Bush, McCain, Ryan, Rubio, etc Absolutely I could. How does Paul score with the resident moderates? Could you entertain the thought of supporting him, or does Hillary seem more appealing?

I'm torn on his evolving isolationist views. Honestly some of it makes sense, but I wonder if the establishment politicians from both sides are right that it would be a disaster, or are they as full **** about this as they are about most things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's set to announce on the 7th, next to Bush, McCain, Ryan, Rubio, etc Absolutely I could. How does Paul score with the resident moderates? Could you entertain the thought of supporting him, or does Hillary seem more appealing?

I'm torn on his evolving isolationist views. Honestly some of it makes sense, but I wonder if the establishment politicians from both sides are right that it would be a disaster, or are they as full **** about this as they are about most things?

Well of course it makes sense. Now ask yourself why both parties would be coming after him. Prefer his father but still the apple did not fall too far from the tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expound on my previous post, some of his hardcore libertarian ideals are more of a turn-off to me, but I do like that he's a shift from the standard Republican brand that has absolutely sucked monkey balls for the past decade and some change. He wouldn't change the world, but he would be a signal of some real change within the Republican party. If he won the election though, it would be cool if his dad could play as consigliere, or puppet master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's a guy named "Rand" who is going to run as both a libertarian and a social conservative. That he's popular enough to be a more legit candidate than his father is also why he's not better than all the guys that are going to come off as regular old lunatics elevated to the top of the Republican party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expound on my previous post, some of his hardcore libertarian ideals are more of a turn-off to me, but I do like that he's a shift from the standard Republican brand that has absolutely sucked monkey balls for the past decade and some change. He wouldn't change the world, but he would be a signal of some real change within the Republican party. If he won the election though, it would be cool if his dad could play as consigliere, or puppet master.

If he wants to stand any chance whatsoever, he's going to have to attempt to out crazy the other GOP hopefuls. And he'll become one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually ask about this earlier. He had a fireside chat on a vanity fair panel with Eric Schmidt from Google and legendary VC John Doerr. The person he presented in the chat was someone I could see myself voting for, but from what every one else was saying is that he is fake, so I do not know. I know he has flipped flop on some positions to appeal to his base, like on gay marriage.

In the chat he brought up term limits and getting rid of gerrymandering to make more seats competitive. He also brought up auditing the pentagon and setting up a system that would reward government employees who found waste in the system and got rid of it. He also talked about education and getting government out of the way in education to allow for more innovation like KhanAcademy.

But really I think the moderator had a good point of just spinning off the government and giving it to John Doerr to run as a giant VC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be acknowledged, part of the problem is that you can't run for President as a Republican and have any chance of getting the nomination if you're not ready to adopt positions that appeal to voters who think Obama is a Muslim and the American government is conspiring to outlaw Christianity. Especially for a candidate like Rand Paul who has to actively seek mainstream popularity without losing his unique appeal, he's going to have to say things that don't make sense to educated adults and come off as intentionally myopic or simply idiotic just to generate the necessary buzz to separate himself from the pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be acknowledged, part of the problem is that you can't run for President as a Republican and have any chance of getting the nomination if you're not ready to adopt positions that appeal to voters who think Obama is a Muslim and the American government is conspiring to outlaw Christianity. Especially for a candidate like Rand Paul who has to actively seek mainstream popularity without losing his unique appeal, he's going to have to say things that don't make sense to educated adults and come off as intentionally myopic or simply idiotic just to generate the necessary buzz to separate himself from the pack.

So depressing...

Something/someone has got to give... We need another party to rise up ... the tea party should have pulled out the crazies... but the republicans pulled them back in... now the tea party is all but dead and the crazies are ruining this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be quite honest, yes I could support Rand Paul (IF I had to pull the R lever )conditionally. All politicians are faker than a $3.00 bill, but there are several things that he has done that I consider a start such as:

1) He does not talk down to black people! IIRC, I think he went to an NAACP meeting about a year or two ago and actually had a pretty good speech and outlined his vision and how (some) GOP principals could benefit blacks, which was refreshing. He didn't take the Romney condescending/insulting as all **** tack in going before a group and saying something stupid like Romney did ("If you want something free, vote for the other guy!"). WTF!!!!

2) He is spot on with changing the drugs laws and I appreciate him reaching out to Booker!

There are some other things I agree with him on too, but at the same time, this guy could (potentially) take money out of my pockets, so I'd have to think twice about actually voting for him! My $.02!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some other things I agree with him on too, but at the same time, this guy could (potentially) take money out of my pockets, so I'd have to think twice about actually voting for him! My $.02!

how would he "take money out of your pockets"?

First, drop the quotes, you don't know me at all! Second, there are positive and negative effects to any policy, and one particular "thing" that he has advocated could be disastrous for me, and I can't see where it would balance out or pay off! That is all I will say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brief guide to what Rand Paul actually believes

By Max Ehrenfreund April 7 at 10:40 AM

Rand Paul is scheduled to announce that he is running for president in a speech in Louisville on Tuesday. The Republican senator from Kentucky and the son of the libertarian icon Ron Paul is calling himself "a different kind of Republican leader." In some ways, the younger Paul really would be different.

To be sure, Paul agrees with his fellow Republicans on many issues. He thinks states should be free to prevent gays from marrying. He thinks that climate change is real and that humans are causing it, but that view hasn't stopped him from opposing President Obama's regulations on carbon dioxide emissions, which Paul says will damage the economy. Paul has consistently argued for more lenient federal marijuana policies, but even on this controversial issue, most of his potential rivals for the GOP nomination agree with him that states should be free to write their own laws on weed.

Still, there are a few areas in which Paul's previous statements suggest he may have some real disagreements with other likely Republican candidates. And there are other areas in which Paul's opinions seem to have changed. Either Paul will further adjust his views as the campaign progresses to align himself with his opponents, or these disagreements will define the primary phase of the campaign for him.

Surveillance

The clearest difference between Paul and his party is probably on the question of how much information the government should be able to collect from Americans' phone calls and digital communications.

A bill to reform the National Security Agency failed last year due to Republican opposition. They worried that restrictions on the agency's ability to gather massive amounts of data could blind the country to a terrorist plot.

Like the rest of his party, Paul voted against the bill, but for the opposite reason. He felt it didn't go far enough to constrain surveillance, and that a vote in favor would have been a vote for spying on Americans.

That vote sets Paul apart from just about everyone in his party, including establishment figures who want to keep the government's surveillance powers as well as others who are sympathetic to Paul's views, but more willing to compromise. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), a presidential candidate who sponsored last year's bill, criticized Paul's refusal to vote for it last week, saying the bill would have passed the Senate with Paul's crucial support.

The military

Paul's views on snooping are clear. By contrast, how he thinks about America's military power might be the largest unanswered question in his campaign. As a libertarian, Paul used to argue against using military force in foreign countries. Before joining the Senate, he denounced the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy, saying that Vice President **** Cheney had supported the invasion of Iraq because it would benefit his former employer, Halliburton.

Paul has said repeatedly he would oppose war with Iran, including in an interview last year on ABC's "This Week." He said then he thought war with Iran was "a dumb idea," and he also talked about the military budget, saying it shouldn't be "a blank check." These statements set him at odds with most other Republicans.

More recently, though, he's taken a harder line on Iran, joining the rest of his caucus in signing a controversial letter on the negotiations over that country's nuclear program. In an apparent shift away from his previous skepticism about military spending, he proposed a $190 billion increase in the Pentagon's budget last month.

The schools

Many libertarians worry that the federal government is impinging on locally elected school boards' authority over classrooms. In particular, they're upset about the Common Core, a national set of standards designed to ensure that a high school diploma means more or less the same thing in every state.

Paul shares this concern, and he's been talking to voters about it. On a recent visit to New Hampshire, he said that the national system threatens to stifle new ideas in education, and that the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.

The Common Core began as the brainchild of a few activists, governors and state education officials, not with bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Still, the standards might not have been adopted so widely and so quickly without the support of the Obama administration.

He's also claimed the standards contain "revisionist history that ignores the faith of our Founders." (The standards do not address history, only math and reading.)

The Republican field is divided on the question of the Common Core. Some likely candidates are on Paul's side, while others agree with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, an outspoken supporter. Bush has dedicated his time since leaving office to advancing the standards through his private foundation.

The economy

Another major question for Paul is what he thinks about the Federal Reserve and the recent financial crisis. The Fed's decisions about where to set interest rates have profound consequences for the national economy, so it will be important for voters to figure out exactly what Paul thinks about this issue.

Most Republicans have argued that the Fed has gone too far in its efforts to support the economy since the crisis, risking a sudden, drastic increase in prices. So far, prices have hardly budged, and there's no reason to think that they will.

Despite the stability of prices, however, Paul has gone even farther than some of his Republican colleagues, speaking approvingly of the gold standard. On the gold standard, a dollar was worth a fixed weight in gold, which at least ensured that the prices of other things wouldn't change much over the long term.

"We need to think about our currency that once upon a time had a link to a commodity and I think we should study it," he said in 2013. He did not, however, advocate for a return to the gold standard, but only for a commission to study the idea.

If there are any economists on the commission, they'll probably reject it. Economists disagree about a lot of things, but not the gold standard. Just about all of them think it's a terrible idea, according to one recent survey.

Whether Paul, as president, would ask Congress to restore the gold standard remains to be seen. The possibility that he might makes him "by far the most dangerous candidate in the 2016 field," Danny Vinik argues at The New Republic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/07/a-brief-guide-to-what-rand-paul-actually-believes/?tid=sm_tw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...