Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet he's running as a member of the party that brought us the Patriot act? The party that opposes legalization of marijuana? The party that has never met a police power they didn't support (except those few that might be used against old white guys with money)? The party that BROUGHT us civil forfeiture?
His stance on marijuana legalization is lame and mealy-mouthed. This kind of **** is why people don't like or trust him.
And his filibuster about drones? Turns out he basically flip/flopped on that.
“Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat,” the statement adds. “I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.”
It continues:
Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.
Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.
Obviously, Paul saying he has been consistent is not enough. For a closer look at the Kentucky senator’s stance on drone strikes, we turn to the The American Conservative’s Jordan Bloom.
“To be fair [to people upset with the senator], Paul wasn’t as clear as he should have been,” Bloom writes. “It seems like he’s trying to describe a firefight in which the cops are forced to neutralize a thief robbing a liquor store, but the way he actually describes it sounds far more innocuous; he doesn’t mention the thief posing any threat.”
And to those who are taking Paul at his word, Bloom writes:
But does anyone actually believe he’s endorsing the use of a hellfire missile to take out a thief that presents no threat? If he thought that was OK, do you think he might have allowed for it in the bill he introduced banning domestic drone strikes?
The important thing to remember, he continues, “is that any politician is unlikely to unequivocally oppose law enforcement techniques that would allow officers to do their jobs out of harm’s way, up to and including using robots to kill criminals.”
“It seems like a lot of libertarians are opposed to any drone use by law enforcement. While I can’t fault them on principle, it seems like an untenable position, and anyway that ship has sailed,” he adds. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that Paul has made these kind of statements before!
Indeed, what he said on Cavuto he must have said at least a dozen times during his 13-hour filibuster of the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan.
Also, there’s this June 2012 CNN interview:
Costello: What about in this instance? One Texas sheriff told reporters his agency is considering arming his drones with rubber bullets and tear gas. Let’s say there’s a large crowd gathering and you need some crowd control. This type of drone might be able to diminish any problems on the ground. Would that be allowed under your bill?
Paul: Anything that would require a warrant. It would have to have a warrant. And I’m concerned about obviously arming drones. But I don’t want to say that I’m arguing against technology. For example, there’s a bomb in a car, I’m very happy that we have automated robots that can go up to the car and investigate the bomb and we don’t have to risk a human. Same with drones. If they can save lives, that’d be one thing. Arming drones obviously sends up pictures of the military and I don’t think domestically armed drones are a good idea. What I would say is that drones could be used if you have a proper warrant. But that means you go through a judge.
Here's a press release from Senator Paul with further clarification:
Quote:
Imminent threat, it is the one exception to due process in which case it becomes essential for the officer/soldier/whatever to fire on a target in order to prevent that target from taking lives, and soldiers (and I assume police officers) have it drilled into them how to determine what is imminent threat (speaking from experience in urban warfare training). The example given (by Paul) was a very vague example of an imminent threat, but the parameters for what are considered an imminent threat are very well defined in order to protect the lives of innocents. The basic rule of imminent threat from my training (US Army) was to look at the hands, if the target is trying to point a gun at you, you fire first ask questions later, if the target was just shouting allahu ackbar, that doesn’t constitute imminent threat (albeit if he’s running towards you, yes). I have a friend who’s a police officer and from what I’ve learned speaking to him, their parameters were even tighter than mine, to where a criminal practically had to be pulling a trigger before they were considered imminent threat. To add more to your comfort, one of the rules of shooting was basically “do not shoot if there is someone behind your target who you don’t want to shoot.” since bullets have the issue of overpenetration, and civilian losses are bad (obviously). Consequently, the same rules would apply to missiles, missiles would not be usable if there was the potential for civilian deaths, therefore missiles will not see use domestically unless perhaps we’re talking some lone warehouse in the nevada desert where there are some jihadists or other terrorists trying to remotely detonate some nuclear bomb (and then we might just send jack bauer ). Basically, imminent threat is not a definition where we have to worry about rights being infringed, because then it becomes a matter of self-defense.
If you actually paid any attention, any at all, to his filibuster and listened to what he was saying you would know that his position has not changed. People only think it changed because the media is lazy and doesn't actually report in depth facts. They just rush out with headlines and then when statements don't 100% match up with their little headline they cry "flip flopper!" The charge of "flip fopping" is a lazy media tactic anyway. I hate when people deride politicans for being "flip floppers."
Let's take some in the media at their word that Rand Paul flip flopped on Iran. 8 years ago he said Iran is not a threat. Well maybe 8 years later, having spent 6 years in the Senate, he changed his mind based on being privy to new information and a more complete picture. Would that really be a crime? Isn't someone who changes their mind when presented with new facts the sign of a good leader with an open mind? Or should all people be held to statements they made 8 years ago with a different set of facts? Should people not reevaluate their opinions based on the every shifting world of foreign policy? The important thing is that your core principles do not change and I do not believe Senator Paul's principles have changed. He still advocates staunchly his foreign policy of non-intervention and would work to enforce the entire Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution.
As to why he is a Republican, probably because he believes they are the party of limited government and free markets. Historically his positions match up well with standard GOP positions. Look up Senator Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican" and see how similiar he is to Rand Paul. Why can't he advocate for criminal justice reform, civil liberties, and non-intervention from the GOP? Are the Democrats just always the part of those things? Last I checked they are doing a pretty horrid job on those issues as well, if not worse than Republicans on some of them. Senator Paul is working to the bring the Republican Party back to what it was historically: the party of limited government and free markets. Last I checked drug wars and "Patriot" Acts aren't a part of small government.
And for the record the "Patriot" Act was authored by Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton voted for it. Rand Paul was an Eye Doctor in Kentucky at the time but he has voted for it's renewal.
Rand Paul isn't ready for prime time.
He shushed one female reporter, talked over another, got schooled by Megyn Kelly, and now walked out of a Guardian interview.
The persecution complex is strong in that man.
When a politician is asked about the Civil Rights Act, & his answer suggests it may be unconstitutional because it may have restricted the freedom of segregationist business owners, this begs many questions.
Rand Paul is being asked questions that any other politician might be asked, & some of his answers require further clarification, an intellectual, logically coherent & consistent answer would be wonderful.
If his core guiding principles & beliefs are important to him, he should be prepared to answer questions when his ideological principles are applied in full, grounded in reality, & in real time.
If he is stymied by the limitations of his own ideology, it would be refreshing to hear him speak honestly about his frustrations rather than to splutter on about how reality doesn’t match up with his ideology.
When a politician is asked about the Civil Rights Act, & his answer suggests it may be unconstitutional because it may have restricted the freedom of segregationist business owners, this begs many questions.
Rand Paul is being asked questions that any other politician might be asked, & some of his answers require further clarification, an intellectual, logically coherent & consistent answer would be wonderful.
If his core guiding principles & beliefs are important to him, he should be prepared to answer questions when his ideological principles are applied in full, grounded in reality, & in real time.
If he is stymied by the limitations of his own ideology, it would be refreshing to hear him speak honestly about his frustrations rather than to splutter on about how reality doesn’t match up with his ideology.
The race for President isn't a beauty contest. It's not debate club. No one running is perfect. No one running will be able to explain ALL of their positions in a way that is palatable to all people.
In my opinion, Rand Paul's overall philosophy on domestic policy is pretty close to mine. I'm not in total agreement with him on all issues, and no one will be.
I think he's the best candidate in terms of working to limit the overreach of the Federal government into state and individual rights, and reining in Federal spending and regulation to be more in line with what the Constitution explicitly authorizes.
If you share that desire, don't shoot yourself in the foot over the occasional politically incorrect misstep. Everyone is bound to make those, and far too much is made over them.
The race for President isn't a beauty contest. It's not debate club. No one running is perfect. No one running will be able to explain ALL of their positions in a way that is palatable to all people.
In my opinion, Rand Paul's overall philosophy on domestic policy is pretty close to mine. I'm not in total agreement with him on all issues, and no one will be.
I think he's the best candidate in terms of working to limit the overreach of the Federal government into state and individual rights, and reining in Federal spending and regulation to be more in line with what the Constitution explicitly authorizes.
If you share that desire, don't shoot yourself in the foot over the occasional politically incorrect misstep. Everyone is bound to make those, and far too much is made over them.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I’m not sure what you mean by the beauty contest part? (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps?) Although I agree no one is perfect, nor will anyone be able to explain their positions perfectly, I think folks tend to favor a pattern of reasoning that more closely matches their own.
Valid concerns regarding the proper role of the Federal Government would be better served, imho, by convening a Second Constitutional Convention rather than by relying on the election of this or that person. After all, the first Constitutional Convention, held in 1787, was originally convened to amend the Articles of Confederation & not to create a new Constitution.
Quote:
Scarcely a year after the Constitution had been ratified by the states, Jefferson sent a letter to James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, asserting that “the earth belongs always to the living generation … Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”
Here's a press release from Senator Paul with further clarification:
If you actually paid any attention, any at all, to his filibuster and listened to what he was saying you would know that his position has not changed. People only think it changed because the media is lazy and doesn't actually report in depth facts. They just rush out with headlines and then when statements don't 100% match up with their little headline they cry "flip flopper!" The charge of "flip fopping" is a lazy media tactic anyway. I hate when people deride politicans for being "flip floppers."
Let's take some in the media at their word that Rand Paul flip flopped on Iran. 8 years ago he said Iran is not a threat. Well maybe 8 years later, having spent 6 years in the Senate, he changed his mind based on being privy to new information and a more complete picture. Would that really be a crime? Isn't someone who changes their mind when presented with new facts the sign of a good leader with an open mind? Or should all people be held to statements they made 8 years ago with a different set of facts? Should people not reevaluate their opinions based on the every shifting world of foreign policy? The important thing is that your core principles do not change and I do not believe Senator Paul's principles have changed. He still advocates staunchly his foreign policy of non-intervention and would work to enforce the entire Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution.
As to why he is a Republican, probably because he believes they are the party of limited government and free markets. Historically his positions match up well with standard GOP positions. Look up Senator Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican" and see how similiar he is to Rand Paul. Why can't he advocate for criminal justice reform, civil liberties, and non-intervention from the GOP? Are the Democrats just always the part of those things? Last I checked they are doing a pretty horrid job on those issues as well, if not worse than Republicans on some of them. Senator Paul is working to the bring the Republican Party back to what it was historically: the party of limited government and free markets. Last I checked drug wars and "Patriot" Acts aren't a part of small government.
And for the record the "Patriot" Act was authored by Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton voted for it. Rand Paul was an Eye Doctor in Kentucky at the time but he has voted for it's renewal.
If a wall of text is required to 'clarify', then things still ain't all that clear.
Fact is that Randy can't concisely explain and consistently act on his so-called principles. Plus he's chosen to take a stand in favor of LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION (that's one hell of a hill to die on). Not to mention the fact that he fully supports welfare for himself and his doctor buddies- while claiming it's horrible for anybody else to receive help from the gov't ("doctors deserve to make a good living").
This is why people don't like him and don't trust him. And it's why he'll never be president.
If a wall of text is required to 'clarify', then things still ain't all that clear.
Fact is that Randy can't concisely explain and consistently act on his so-called principles. Plus he's chosen to take a stand in favor of LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION (that's one hell of a hill to die on). Not to mention the fact that he fully supports welfare for himself and his doctor buddies- while claiming it's horrible for anybody else to receive help from the gov't ("doctors deserve to make a good living").
This is why people don't like him and don't trust him. And it's why he'll never be president.
I think he has a difficult time reconciling his words with his principles with his actions in a common sense way. To be fair, I think anyone with his ideological stance would have a hard time doing so, given the issues & the history of this Country.
I think he has a difficult time reconciling his words with his principles with his actions in a common sense way. To be fair, I think anyone with his ideological stance would have a hard time doing so, given the issues & the history of this Country.
I agree with that.
And it demonstrates the limits of his rigid ideology. All the high-minded constitutional arguments in the world don't change the FACT that without intervention by the Feds, systematic discrimination would've continued in the South. Even Randy is bending his own supposedly iron-clad ideology by ceding a slew of 'states rights' in his half-hearted endorsement of those parts of the Civil Rights Act applicable to government institutions. Just shows how unworkable libertarian 'principles' are in the real world- despite their fairly consistent internal logic.
You can see this in other positions he takes. He doesn't support unqualified legalization of marijuana- even though that WOULD be the true Libertarian position. No, instead he's splitting hairs and taking the neo-confederate route of "states rights", saying that the states should make the decision- which is certainly a more palatable position to take among Republican neoconfederates. But it's NOT Libertarian. I mean, I don't recall Libertarians supporting government intrusion into personal behavior. Does the fact that it's the Great State of Mississippi rather than the United States of America really make a difference?
And as I mentioned earlier, he's compromising his 'libertarian principles' when it comes to Medicare payments to doctors. I mean, doctors are free to NOT take Medicare payments. But instead, Randy supports increasing Medicare payments to doctors- because they "deserve to make a good living". Libertarian 'principles' for thee, but not for me.
These are some pretty good examples of why I've abandoned the Libertarians. Lots of their positions ARE logically consistent... within a simplified world-view unencumbered by the need for policies that function in the real world. Sun Tzu said that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy- and I firmly believe that. That's exactly what we're witnessing with Randy: Libertarian ideology getting just a little closer to the real world.
Right now, Libertarianism exists primarily in op-eds, message boards, and talk shows- makes it look pretty appealing just sitting there flexing its internal-logic muscles without actually having to function in the real world. But as it has to deal with real-world issues like elections (which are hard enough), and governing (which is MUCH more difficult), the ideology and those who wield it WILL make compromises. And as Randy is demonstrating, those compromises will be politically expedient and self-serving. An awful lot like those Democrats and Republicans we all loathe so much.
Plus he's chosen to take a stand in favor of LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION (that's one hell of a hill to die on). Not to mention the fact that he fully supports welfare for himself and his doctor buddies- while claiming it's horrible for anybody else to receive help from the gov't ("doctors deserve to make a good living").
Is "legalized discrimination" any worse of a hill to die on than abortion of a viable fetus? The left doesn't like the term pro-abortion, they prefer pro-choice. Why? Many pro-choice people would never have an abortion nor encourage a loved one to do so. Just because they want it legal, and for women to have a choice, doesn't mean they like or approve the procedure in general, but they allow for people to believe differently and act accordingly. People who favor legalization of marijuana aren't necessarily going to choose to partake if legalized. Many who consider flag-burning reprehensible do not want it outlawed, because our laws protect speech and expression we don't like. By the same logic, someone who is theoretically opposed to government selection of protected classes and laws against discriminating against the people the government deems worthy of protection doesn't mean they like or approve or would discriminate against others, whether in a sanctioned protected class or not.
Welfare for doctors? What is this new program, I haven't heard of it. And please explain why doctors don't deserve to make a good living.
And it demonstrates the limits of his rigid ideology. All the high-minded constitutional arguments in the world don't change the FACT that without intervention by the Feds, systematic discrimination would've continued in the South. Even Randy is bending his own supposedly iron-clad ideology by ceding a slew of 'states rights' in his half-hearted endorsement of those parts of the Civil Rights Act applicable to government institutions. Just shows how unworkable libertarian 'principles' are in the real world- despite their fairly consistent internal logic.
You can see this in other positions he takes. He doesn't support unqualified legalization of marijuana- even though that WOULD be the true Libertarian position. No, instead he's splitting hairs and taking the neo-confederate route of "states rights", saying that the states should make the decision- which is certainly a more palatable position to take among Republican neoconfederates. But it's NOT Libertarian. I mean, I don't recall Libertarians supporting government intrusion into personal behavior. Does the fact that it's the Great State of Mississippi rather than the United States of America really make a difference?
And as I mentioned earlier, he's compromising his 'libertarian principles' when it comes to Medicare payments to doctors. I mean, doctors are free to NOT take Medicare payments. But instead, Randy supports increasing Medicare payments to doctors- because they "deserve to make a good living". Libertarian 'principles' for thee, but not for me.
These are some pretty good examples of why I've abandoned the Libertarians. Lots of their positions ARE logically consistent... within a simplified world-view unencumbered by the need for policies that function in the real world. Sun Tzu said that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy- and I firmly believe that. That's exactly what we're witnessing with Randy: Libertarian ideology getting just a little closer to the real world.
Right now, Libertarianism exists primarily in op-eds, message boards, and talk shows- makes it look pretty appealing just sitting there flexing its internal-logic muscles without actually having to function in the real world. But as it has to deal with real-world issues like elections (which are hard enough), and governing (which is MUCH more difficult), the ideology and those who wield it WILL make compromises. And as Randy is demonstrating, those compromises will be politically expedient and self-serving. An awful lot like those Democrats and Republicans we all loathe so much.
Rand Paul doesn't claim to be a large L libertarian, and he's not running as one. He's running as a libertarian-leaning, Constitution-respecting Republican. So demanding total obeisance to the Libertarian platform is disingenous.
States rights on marijuana is consistent with the 10th Amendment.
If Medicare payments are so low that doctors stop taking it, the left would be screaming about limited access to healthcare. Or doctors simply bump up fees to the rest of their patients to compensate.
Is "legalized discrimination" any worse of a hill to die on than abortion of a viable fetus? The left doesn't like the term pro-abortion, they prefer pro-choice. Why? Many pro-choice people would never have an abortion nor encourage a loved one to do so. Just because they want it legal, and for women to have a choice, doesn't mean they like or approve the procedure in general, but they allow for people to believe differently and act accordingly. People who favor legalization of marijuana aren't necessarily going to choose to partake if legalized. Many who consider flag-burning reprehensible do not want it outlawed, because our laws protect speech and expression we don't like. By the same logic, someone who is theoretically opposed to government selection of protected classes and laws against discriminating against the people the government deems worthy of protection doesn't mean they like or approve or would discriminate against others, whether in a sanctioned protected class or not.
Welfare for doctors? What is this new program, I haven't heard of it. And please explain why doctors don't deserve to make a good living.
Look, if Randy wants to make a stand against the Civil Rights Act... that's his business. But he'll go down in flames doing so. Fact is that his ideological stance has already made him unelectable on a national level.
Really it's the same catch-22 that lots of Republicans find themselves in. Randy took that pro-discrimination stand in order to appeal to the southern neo-confederate Republicans that make up a significant chunk of the base- and it worked... he was elected. But on a national level, that deal with the devil will be his undoing.
And yeah, Randy voted to increase medicare payments to doctors. Because as he put it, "doctors deserve to make a good living". Since when do Libertarians- or even Republicans for that matter- claim that ANYBODY "deserves" to make a good living? And he's distributing government funds in order to make it happen? That's white-collar welfare. If doctors don't like what Medicare is paying... they don't have to accept those patients.
Oh wait... old people can't pay without Medicare? Hmmm... how's that Holy Free Market workin' out for ya'?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Basically, imminent threat is not a definition where we have to worry about rights being infringed, because then it becomes a matter of self-defense.
