Convince me why I shouldn't vote for Rand Paul

I dunno, if you're a totalitarian social conservative masquerading as a libertarian maybe you should vote for Rand Paul. And when he loses, as he will, please stay home for the General election out of "principle". I really don't want somebody who supports Rand Paul to be voting at all.

 

PROS: 1) Rand is extraordinary when compared to other politicians on civil liberties from what I've read and heard. 2) Is against subsidizing/tax breaks for energy companies like Big Oil. 3) Is against the federal takeover of public education. 4) Is against the forced government takeover of healthcare. 5) Wants strong defense at the borders. 6) Marijuana is a states rights issue. 7) Congress must declare War before the U.S. military goes to War. ( Supports reducing foreign aid to Israel. 9) Supports cutting foreign aid to countries that burn the American flag and chant 'Death to America'. 10) Is for a balanced budget.

IFFY: 1) He opposes the Federal Reserve. 2) Wants the T.S.A. eliminated. 3) Opposes human cloning for scientific research. 4) Opposes same-sex marriage. 5) Supported legislation in Kentucky to let felons vote. 6) Opposes birthright citizenship of illegal aliens. 7) Supports term limits. ( Bipolar stance on Iran.

CONS: 1) He describes himself as a Tea Party member. 2) Is okay with U.S. law enforcement using armed drones. 3) Is against abortion even in the instances of rape, incest and if the woman's life is in jeopardy. 4) Thinks that Israeli settlement construction in East Jerusalem is none of America's business. 5) Wants to cut food stamps, which he equated to slavery. 6) Would cut social security disability. 7) Trade war with Russia and China. ( Allegedly believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old.


IF Rand had stuck to his guns, that being civil liberties, and not ventured off into such social issues as abortion and social welfare/entitlements in a similar fashion as other knuckle-dragging Republicans/conservatives/Tea Party members, then he would be a much more attractive Presidential candidate. Furthermore, he'd probably downgrade our military from the preeminent worldpower to just a regional power. Though the Federal Reserve should be more closely examined by Congress, but Rand's desire to axe it and allow the free-market to dictate our monetary supply would likely cripple this nation. There's more but hopefully you get the gist.

 

Hmm, Rand Paul is a smart, intelligent man. A good family values guy. And, educated. Normally I like electing smart people.

What are the down sides?

Well, He has affiliations with the Tea Party. Generally the Tea Party's primary focus group consists of inexperienced first time political activists. So if you find it suspicious that a smart, intelligent man like Rand Paul is running a horse and pony show activist group called FreedomWorks than maybe you shouldn't vote for him. Who knows what he's up to?

Actually I'll tell you. He has strong personal privacy views and that would be a good thing, but he pairs it with a drive to cut the budget of everything from the Department of Education by 83% to Homeland Security Defense spending by 43%. No budget item is safe when this guy is around. If you're considering a vote for Rand Paul maybe this appeals to you, but I would think even a Conservative would see that such large across the board cuts would make America weaker in the future?

Rand Paul is a known user of the filibuster to block Presidential appointments. Who can say, here and now, whether a President Rand Paul might deserve to get HIS appointments blocked by Democrats' filibusters because turn about is fair play?

Rand Paul is anti-drone and anti-extra judicial punishment... is that good? bad? You tell me. We live in an age of terrorism, lest we forget.

I generally thought Rand Paul's careful handed approach not to aggravate Russia during the early days of the Ukraine crisis to be good, but then he went and said the USA should counteract Russia's oil and gas supply, so even if that sounds like a good plan that IS going to antagonize Russia, which apparently has a one resource economy with it's energy exports. In fact part of the Ukraine crisis involves Ukraine renegading on their energy debts to Russia, one tiny overlooked fact.


This is all stuff I found on Wikipedia about Rand Paul. And, I can't tell you whether or not to vote for him but be careful and look up his views and his background if you want to be informed. He has many things going for him and some stuff that would give me pause even if I were a Conservative, which I'm not I'm Democrat.

Best of luck to you in choosing your next Presidential candidate!

 

Taxcutter says:
In today's rhetoric, what gets called "exploitation," worker safety," and "environmental hazards" are highly debatable - thus subjective.

 

Not at all. Even our flimsy and corporate interest riddled laws acknowledge all of the above. Thanks to workers before us who fought and sometimes died to pass these things down to us. And now we're throwing it away out of cowardice, carelessness, and ignorance.

 

He has no chance of winning the primary, so you won't have to waste your time voting twice
Standard RepubloCratic comment.

YOU wouldn't want to throw away your vote by voting for a looser, would you? Huh?

2014, Throw Away Your Vote! Vote for the Third Party of your choice!
Opt out of the RepubloCratic game. Be part of a working democracy.

2016, probably do the same except for certain individuals such as
Rand Paul, M.D., Elizabeth Warren, Jerry Brown, and a few others.


Moi
Anti RepubloCrat
Among RepubloCrats, There is No Lesser Evil. Consider Bush & Obama (real images without make up)

& ​

No ​

 

Rand Paul is the GOP frontrunner, so if he has no chance of winning the primary, that means that the big-money selected candidate will win no matter what, and so you shouldn't waste your time voting for anybody because your vote means nothing anyway. Yep, this is true.

 

Well, one thing that I do agree with is that he peaked too early, which means people will start trashing him and trying to take him down now instead of closer to the Iowa Caucus. If they start now, he may not make it to it...

 

Doesn't hurt him so much in the primary as it might in the general, but notice he's already trying to break the mold of just being a "Tea Party" guy. Redefining himself without pissing the Tea Party off is going to be touch, though. So far I give him a B+ on that, though. Immigration will be the toughest issue for him to tip-toe around.

The GOP base will love his stance on cutting spending in the primary, but it'll bite him in the general. Look what they did to Paul Ryan on his budget plan and it wasn't half of what Rand has proposed. A bigger concern: they're gonna try to make him out to be a racist. They'll attempt to connect some dots (Civil Rights Act comments + Jack Hunter + Questionable donations = racist, basically). Then they'll say "OMFG he wants to cut the Department of Education because he's racist! He doesn't want black children to have a public education!" They won't use those words, but that'll be the message. Of course its wrong, of course it's demagoguery, but when has that stopped them in the past?

Dems killed the filibuster.... Haha, oops on there part!

I think the GOP will have a harder time attacking him on the drone and judicial reform issues because than they'll shoot themselves in the foot by looking pro-drone and anti-judicial reform (which also can be interpreted as being anti-black since so many people in the black community are the ones who are incarcerated). In the general elections, these positions will do him a lot of good, especially with young voters and will allow him to flank Clinton from the left.

[QUOTEI generally thought Rand Paul's careful handed approach not to aggravate Russia during the early days of the Ukraine crisis to be good, but then he went and said the USA should counteract Russia's oil and gas supply, so even if that sounds like a good plan that IS going to antagonize Russia, which apparently has a one resource economy with it's energy exports. In fact part of the Ukraine crisis involves Ukraine renegading on their energy debts to Russia, one tiny overlooked fact.[/QUOTE]

I think the Russia situation is bad for Rand. So is his Iran position. It's the same thing as it was for his father. They'll say "the apple didn't fall far from the tree!" Best thing he can hope for is the Russia situation cools down. He's walking a thin line on all this. That said, I think his Syria stance did him a lot of good. The bottom line is on this issue the war hawks and neo-cons in the GOP are going to try to destroy him on and that's not even getting to Israel which is his biggest problem. He's gonna have everyone lined up to take him down on that, including people willing to spend millions of dollars to do so. Even in the general, his foreign policy views could both help and hurt him by allowing Hillary to flank him from the right... It's tough to call how all this would play in the general and I'd love to see it. But right now this is the single biggest road block to Rand Paul becoming President.

There's other things too, like the plagiarism thing, which I give him a pass on because it seems like an honest mistake. I think he weathered that storm, unless they did up more of it. Remember this killed Biden in 1988.


In the end, though, I'm a Rand Paul supporter. I don't agree with him on everything (I'm closer to his father's brand of Libertarianism), but it's close enough and I actually admire and like the fact that some of his positions and his political savvy make him more electable. Standing on 100% principle and keeping the same ridged views is admirable, as is just freely speaking your mind, but at some point if you wanna make real change you actually have to WIN an election. So win and then be principled

 

If you are of CHILD BEARING age. If you are the mother or father of child bearing age daughter or grandaughter. If you give a flying fig about WOMEN'S RIGHTS and dominion over their own personhood. Then you SHOULD NOT vote for Rand Paul. We know, of course, if you are a MALE, a WHITE MALE who wants to protect HIS guns and HIS money, women's rights will be pretty far down your priority list.

 

Ron Paul doesn't believe in Meganeura.

 

I totally support women's rights, including when they're still in the womb.

 

I agree that Rand is good in many areas w/respect to civil liberties and the constitution but he is not 'extraordinary'. In some areas he is very poor and this contradicts what he claims as core beliefs. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

One of the main themes of the constitution and the bill of rights is that the "State" is not to make laws on the basis of religious belief.

There is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others through coercion or threat of violence, fine and imprisonment. One of the general principles of the rule of law is the Golden Rule = "Do unto others as you would have them do to you"

Simply put: If you do not want others forcing religious or personal beliefs on you then you should not be doing it to others.

Clearly Rand does not understand this and so I question both his intelligence and integrity on this basis. This saddens me because as a constitution loving fiscal conservative I like so many of this policies.

You mention a number of areas where he goes off the rails:

1) Opposition of Same Sex Marriage ? This is a religious belief. Who cares what my personal opinion of SSM is. The state has no business dictating that one form of "conscious coupling" between two consenting adults receives benefits or status over the other.

My question is why would any two people, regardless of gender, who choose to cohabitate and/or have some kind of civil union have more rights/benefits/tax breaks than a single person.

If two people choose to raise a child then this is different. There are good reasons why the state would give benefits in compensation for the extra expense of having a child. These benefits are however, on the basis of children and not the form of civil union two people are engaged in.

2) Abortion: Forcing religious belief on others through law is against the spirit and letter of the constitution.

If we are going to take away the rights and freedoms from a woman such as "liberty, pursuit of happiness" and having control over one's own body then the state better have an iron clad case that is backed up by a solid argument.

If we are going to force a belief which claims (zygote is a human and therefor entitled to rights including the right to life) on society and threaten violence and imprisonment of people who go against this belief then the state better have a solid argument which proves this claim true.

There is no solid argument proving that a zygote is a living human.

The State has no business making laws which violate the rights of citizens on the basis of "I don't know"

3) "Believes the Earth is 6000 years old - aka creationism" - You know what ? if one wants to have a personal belief this is what freedom is all about.

My problem is when someone does not understand the difference between having a personal religious belief and forcing that belief on others. Clearly Rand does not get this basic principle.

 

Since you have no legitimate argument proving that a zygote is a "woman" - your claim that such a thing exists is a logical fallacy (assumed premise)

 

By week 4 - 5 of gestation the first heart beats are recorded as the blood begins to flow through the veins. The brain as also began to develop. At this point to call it anything but a human being, especially a zygote, is the true stretch. Aside from that, based on the definition of what a zygote is, to call it that is factually inaccurate. A zygote is the INITIAL cell, not something that has arms, legs, a brain, a beating heart, etc. So, I repeat, I support women's rights, including in the womb. It's easy just to kill another human when it has no voice, when its hidden inside someone's stomach and that is the only difference between an unborn human and one that has been born. Where do we draw the line? If a baby is aborted, its deemed to be okay, but if a baby at the same stage in development is born prematurely doctors do everything conceivable to save its life and if they don't its a tragedy. Why? Because it's understood that thing is a living, breathing, human being. To me, the question has never been about when life begins, it's been does an unborn human has legal rights and when does PERSONHOOD began. When does that cell, what is initially is a zygote, develop human rights and at what stage is it considered a person? For me, its at around 3 weeks, when the heart begins to beat (and this position, by the way, means that I have no problem with the morning-after pill). Its absurd to me that some people really believe abortion is okay and a "women's right" all the way up to 3rd-trimester. That murder is okay. That killing a baby is okay when its in the womb, but 3 minutes later when it goes out its not and that would be murder. To me, life is the most important right because it comes before anything else. In other words, I fully support women's rights, including and especially their right to life and that includes when they are in the womb. Murder has been justified as a "right" for far too long.

 

A zygote has no heart.

I did not call a zygote a fetus so I am not sure what your point is here. Rand Paul is against abortion prior to 4-5 weeks anyway so again... what is your point ?

2) Does having a beating heart prove that something is a living human ? Last time I checked there is no such thing as a living human without significant brain function. (hence the 20-24 week cutoff in some states)

I personally draw the line at sentience (significant brain function) and this is a huge difference between a Fetus and a living human.

Regardless - we are talking about Rand Paul who can not seem to figure out that there is no good argument that proves a zygote is a human.

.

I agree with you on this and have struggled with this question "when does personhood begin"

Clearly Rand Paul has not. This is fine for his personal religious beliefs but he should not be making laws on this basis.

I disagree with 3 weeks but agree that at some point later in term that entity is pretty much a human.

In general I think your personal opinion is valid. Where I think you are lacking is in understanding the difference between having a personal opinion and forcing that opinion on someone else.

The latter bar is much higher. If you are going to be in favor of a law this means that you are in favor of having the state use force, physical violence, imprisonment or even death to enforce your wishes.

This means you need a little more than "Gosh .. I think this is true"

If you want to claim murder then should you not be able to establish that the entity is in fact a living human ?

When I define a living human (not that my definition is even correct) and put a fetus at 3 weeks up against that definition it fails to meet the bar.

Your definition at least incorporates some of that thinking and I applaud you for this.

Where I go off the rails is folks who adamantly claim "the zygote is a human" and can give zero support for that claim.

Here is my argument. There many be differences in our definitions "blood moving through a not yet developed heart resembling a heart beat" to " the ability to feel pain" and even to birth.

When we go to the Journals what we quickly find is "experts disagree"

If one has any respect for the constitution and individual rights and freedoms they will agree that these rights have value and hence should not be taken away on a whim.

Sometimes these rights come into conflict and decisions must be made. How then do we value the constitutionally protected rights of a woman against "I don't know - Experts disagree"

If you "fully support women's rights" then clearly you place a high value on these rights. How do we value " I don't know" ?

My position is that I think at some point "WE" do know = the vast majority of experts will agree.

There are always a few nutter's a the extremes along the bell curve but most often the arguments of these nutter's are so poorly formed that they should not qualify as an "expert".

I believe that those who claim "a zygote is a human" fall into the nutter camp and this is the camp Rand Paul is in.

On this basis I have serious reservations taking him seriously.

 

I guess we had a misunderstanding when you made a very blanket statement about Rand Paul not supporting a women's rights I understood that to mean you felt that any stance against abortion was wrong and then you said a zygote wasn't a woman I just wanted to point out the difference between a zygote and a fetus. I guess I was talking about more the issue at hand that Rand Paul's take on it, which I don't agree with (we're both pro-life, he just thinks the right to life begins before personhood from what I gather -- still, it's not enough of a difference to me to not support him), so my statement about supporting women's rights, including when they're in the womb, is based on MY personal beliefs (not Rand Paul's) which recognize the right to life in a human when personhood begins, not when there's a zygote.

Anyway, that said, I think you have to draw a line as to when personhood begins. Murder should not be a matter of "personal opinion," wrong is wrong. I don't think we can say "hey, I know you think murder is wrong, but that's your opinion and I disagree" with a free society that protects life and liberty. So, we have to draw the line at some point and that includes a point where the fetus is so developed it has human rights because it has reached personhood. Being in the womb shouldn't exempt it from those rights. Even you say, while you disagree with my 3 week determination, that you think at some point it reaches personhood in the womb... so at one point? A decision has to be made and stuck to because otherwise, murder is allowed.

 

"Note: Please don't use "He wont win" as a reason. When I say convince me, I mean policy/leadership wise. Not election wise"

He won't win. What other 'wise' is there?

No one needs to vote. If you vote Republican you're wasting your time. And there is no need for Democrats to vote -- Democrats already have all the votes they need to win.

 

Thus, the compromise articulated in Roe v. Wade that has provided guidance since 1973.

Randy's advocating greater State intrusion is libertarian apostasy - a heresy he is free to espouse, of course.

 

What "compromise"? Roe is hardly clear on when personhood begins, thus why people challenge ANY and ALL restrictions in Court with Roe as the precedent. Roe was Judicial activism anyway. It has no real Constitutional basis. It's a poor ruling. Even a lot of Libertarians I know reject it based on this and they're completely "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion.

Personally, I derive my pro-life stance FROM a libertarian perspective -- that you're free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't impair someone else's life, liberty or property. I believe abortion qualifies as doing this. How can you have liberty without life?

 

As opposed to endorsing either extremist position - that a person suddenly pops into existence at the instant of conception or that one is not present until the moment of birth, the Court ruled with reference to one devleloping during the gestative process with reference to established biological science. Needless to say, neither extremist faction were satisfied by the decision.

You are promoting a statist solution based upon your belief that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cellular material is a person.

You are entitled to entertain such a belief and to proselytize in that regard if you are of a mind to; what you cannot do is impose it upon everyone else via governmental coercion, a basic concept of libertarian ideology.

Libertarian Party on Abortion:

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

National platform adopted at Denver L.P. convention , May 30, 2008​

 

He hasn't entered the race yet, other than that, no reason.

 

I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. (keep in mind this is a thread about Rand and so I tried to point out the reasons why I think he is in error)

I do agree that at some point the Fetus in the womb is "a person". Unfortunately, because of the people like Rand who cling to unsupported claims about the zygote and those like him who will not engage in serious conversation about this topic it does not seem likely that society will be able to address this question in a serious way for a long time.

There are other questions at stake here when we get into the discussion of the value of human life. If the fetus (at some defined point) is valuable such that it should have rights equal to a born human including the right to life, and this is our stance, murder is murder as you say; Then what about when we intentionally kill innocent people in other countries with Drones ?

Are these people somehow less valuable than a Fetus ? The fact of the matter is that we do allow murder in some circumstances.

This is not murder of something where there is some doubt as to whether or not what is being murdered is classified as a person. This murder of born women and children.

Can we really claim with a straight faces that when we use a drone to fire a missile into an area where we "think there might be a bad guy" and we know that innocent people will also be killed that this is not murder ?

We even invented a term for this kind of murder to try and disguise the nature of what we are doing - Collateral damage.

Sure you will have all kinds of idiotic justifications for this murder. The bad guy was using these other people as human shields is one.

So what ? Did these people he was with even know he was a bad guy? Even if they did were they in a position to remove themselves from him. Were the babies and the children in the area guilty of some crime that justifies us "murdering" them ?

Does "murder is wrong" not apply to these people ? This is one area where I think Rand gets it right.. bless his misguided soul.

 

The Court's ruling has been used to justify abortion at all stages of development of the fetus. Also, a fetus is hardly a "microscopic, mindless amalgam of cellular material." As I've stated, I don't think a zygote, which seems to be what you're describing there IS a person. Rand Paul may believe this, I do not. Again, for me the question has always been when does personhood again? And based on science and biology, I have determined this to be at 3 - 4 weeks. At this point there is a developing brain, arms, legs, a beating heart, flowing blood. This is not "microscopic," "mindless" or simply "cellular material." This is not based on my opinion, this is fact. A fetus at that stage is none of those things, period.

As for the LP stance on abortion, just because a political PARTY associated with my ideology has taken a stance doesn't mean I agree that it is a correct stance ideologically or that I have to agree with it. Even they recognize that Libertarians can see it both ways, but the difference is do they view government's purpose as protecting life, liberty and property (and nothing else) or not? I do believe that's the governments purpose. Then, on this question, you have to ask if you believe at a point does an unborn fetus have the same legal rights as a person? I do. Therefore, the conclusion I have reached is that if that is the government's purpose than the government has a duty to protect the life of that unborn fetus by making aborting it illegal in the same way government makes murder illegal and establishes bans to prevent it and consequences to punish for it.

 

Oh, I completely agree with you about drone strikes. I'm 100% against them. Not only are they wrong and prone to mistakes and collateral damage, but I also think they're counter-productive as they increase the recruit ability of those who wish to hurt the U.S. and kill Americans. For me, a pro-life stance shouldn't be made with exceptions. I see too much hypocrisy on the right about this. They love drone strikes and war, but preach against abortion. I'm anti-war and only for it as an act of legitimate DEFENSE. I'm against all aggressive taking of life, which is also what I view abortion as. I think that's the best way to define my pro-life position, and the reason I adapt it from a Libertarian perspective, is Libertarians are suppose to reject acts of aggression and that's what I view abortion, war and Capital Punishment as well as. I am against those things for that reason and only in favor of war as an act of defense. That said, it is also the reason I am not opposed to people being able to CHOOSE to take their own life. That is a personal decision, not an act of aggression. A lot of people then say to me "then how can you not support abortion if you think people should be able to have a choice in that!?" and the answer is simple: At the stage in which a fetus reaches personhood, I believe it has legal human rights and to kill it is not a choice you have the right to make no more than you have the right to murder a child or anyone else who has been born.