Convince me why I shouldn't vote for Rand Paul

I think we are on the same page other than a few minor details. The problem is that there is no politician in the running who appears to "get it" so who to vote for ?

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=48930

We did not need Barbara to tell us this. Some dude comes home to find this wife and children killed by a US missile because some bad guy happened to be in the neighborhood. What do you think this guy is going to do ?

 

From the Right-Wing Wall Street Journal:




Rand Paul for President

Because what the GOP needs is a humbling landslide defeat



Republicans, let's get it over with. Fast forward to the finish line. Avoid the long and winding primary road. It can only weaken the nominee. And we know who he—yes, he—has to be.

Not Jeb Bush, who plainly is unsuited to be president. He is insufficiently hostile to Mexicans. He holds heretical views on the Common Core, which, as we well know, is the defining issue of our time. And he's a Bush. Another installment of a political dynasty just isn't going to fly with the American people, who want some fresh blood in their politics.

Unless the dynasty is named Clinton. Or Kennedy. Or Nunn. Or Carter. Or, come to think of it, Paul. In that case, dynasties are just fine, thank you.

*snip*

No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.

This man is Rand Paul, the junior senator from a state with eight electoral votes. The man who, as of this writing, has three years worth of experience in elected office. Barack Obama had more political experience when he ran for president.


*snip*


"When the Iraq war started, Halliburton got a billion-dollar no-bid contract. Some of the stuff has been so shoddy and so sloppy that our soldiers are over there dying in the shower from electrocution."

Then he gets to his real point: Dick Cheney, who opposed driving all the way to Baghdad when he was defense secretary in the first Bush administration, later went to work for Halliburton. "Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good thing to go into Iraq."

Mr. Paul's conclusion: "9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq."

Cui bono—to whose benefit? It's the signature question of every conspiracy theorist with an unhinged mind. C heney. Halliburton. Big Oil. The military-industrial complex. Neocons. 9/11. Soldiers electrocuted in the shower. It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

If Mr. Paul wants to accuse the former vice president of engineering a war in Iraq so he could shovel some profits over to his past employer, he should come out and say so explicitly. Ideally at the next Heritage Action powwow. Let's not mince words. This man wants to be the Republican nominee for president.

And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.

 

Yeah, I mean, like I said, I support Rand in 2016 despite that I disagree with him. I have an easier time agreeing with his zygote position than I would if he had a very pro-abortion position.

What's amazing to me about the drone strikes is that the people who are in favor of them never stop and ask themselves, "what would you do if another country murdered your family with a drone?" I imagine I'd try to hurt the country that did it. What we call "terrorists" are often people our backwards foreign policy has directly impacted in a very tragic way. It's not until after 9/11 people were asking "why?" and never asked what would happen if we were in there shoes. What if a foreign power was occupying our land? I think Americans would fight back against them, as we should. There only doing the same thing. Our foreign policy just creates new terrorists.

 

Honestly, reading this just made me more confident that I'm backing the right horse. The neo-conservatives at the Wall Street Journal list the very things they hate about him that are also the things that would help him appeal to Democrats and win the election. Also, weren't the last two candidates who lost in landslides -- McCain and Romney -- the establishment guys? Yes, GOP, if you want another crushing landslide the last thing you need to do is nominate Rand Paul -- nominate another Bush instead. Yeah, that's the way to win Rand Paul couldn't be more different than the two RINOs clowns that cost the GOP the Presidency the last two times.

 

We have been supporting slaughter of innocents in Palestine for decades. Extremist Islam takes this seriously. It got so bad that a bunch of Israeli pilots signed a petition against what were referred to as "targeted assassinations ". http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/25/israel

Dropping one ton bombs on apartment blocks in the middle of crowded neighborhoods because some bad guy happened to be visiting there.

Bush himself stated "we are not only going after the terrorists but the supporters of terrorism". OK, then why are we surprised when others do the same when we support terrorism. My only wonder is why 911 or similar did not happen sooner.

That aside. What bothers me is that our Government is using the "Fear of a foreign threat card" to take away our rights and freedoms.

What is the probability of harm to a US citizen from terrorists in the US ? Orders of magnitude less than the probability of harm from driving to work in the morning.

Yet, we are so afraid that we are willing to give up our freedoms over this scary threat. Obama " if we want security we have to give a little"

Are you freaken kidding me ? If anyone knows that this argument is a joke it is Obama. What a disingenuous clown.

No one is saying that we should not be spying on our enemies but since when is every American citizen "the enemy".

Stalin was not the first but he pretty much wrote the book on the use of fear of a foreign threat to strip rights and freedoms from his citizens. "Defense of the Motherland"

Hitler did the same calling it "Fatherland Security"

Bush did the same calling it "Homeland Security"

and now Obama "If we want Security"

If we want security perhaps we should stop poking hornets nests with sticks.

 

I agree that it would be likely be best for Paul to let sleeping dogs lie.

That the Bush Administration engineered the war in Iraq over a strategic interest through lies, deceit and embellishment is now a historical fact.

What is also a fact is that a large percentage of the GOP are too ignorant to understand this fact.

Cant give Paul much credit for political smarts on this one but at least the guy is not an abject idiot in all areas.

 

At four weeks, a human embryo has grown to about the size of a poppy seed; it is still an amalgam of cellular material in which no brain has yet developed.

Lower brain waves are first detected in the brain stem 6-8 weeks into gestation, and higher brain development established by brain waves in the cerebral cortex at 22–24 weeks of gestation.

Libertarian philosophy espouses minimal government intrusion into private matters, but, as I noted, there are apostates. No one should be allowed to insinuate the State into every womb because he has his notion that a mindless amalgam of cells, even when it has grown to the size of a poppy seed, is a person. Not until a "person" has, in fact, developed.



.

 

And, thus, we differ on at what point a person develops, which is a determination that needs to be made and never has been, especially not by Roe.

Also, despite what you say, it is fact that fetal development begins at week 3 the beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract. By week 4 arm and leg buds become visible and the heart is beating at a steady rhythm. The placenta has formed and is producing hormones, blood is moving through the main vessels. By this time gestation is at week 4 - 5 and fetal development is at 2 - 3 weeks. The embryo is ¼ inch long by the end of these weeks, so bigger than a "potty seed."

 

If he's competing with the Turdblossom Rove's and Carrot Top Adelson's Jeb Bush, exposing the perfidy of the Iraq fiasco must be a weapon Paul needs to use.

Jebby was a founding member and signatory of the PNAC along with Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Fred Iklé, Zalmay Khalilzad, I.Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle, Peter Rodman, Henry Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld , and Paul Wolfowitz.

Paul's isolationism appears all the more attractive when directly contrasted with Jabba's disastrous military scheme.

 

At four weeks, a human embryo has grown to about the size of a poppy seed, but even if you wish to claim it is 1/4" (as happens at 6 weeks), the essential fact is that a brain has not yet formed.

As to when a "person" has developed, you claim to have "determined this to be at 3 - 4 weeks."

I do not think that you can sustain the burden of providing the credible scientific evidence needed to impose such an extreme notion upon the nation, but, of course, you're free to try.

 

He's way too old.

 

No. They were establishment guys who were forced by a fringe element of the Republican Party to take extreme positions.

#1 - the public does not want these extreme policy positions.
#2 - the public knows a phony when they see one.

Wingnuttery did not suit McCain or Romney, and it was obvious.

 

Well, the problem I have is neither he nor dear ol' dad said a peep when Bush was POTUS.

It's typical Rand Paul phoniness. He is very particular about the freeeedoms and liberties he is willing to discuss.

He did a long filibuster about drones overseas but didn't say a thing during his 21 hours about commercial drones spying for profit here in the U.S.

He's made comments about cannabis, but isn't politically brave enough to talk about gambling and prostitution, which Libertarians have been saying for decades should be legal between consenting adults.

 

It reminds me of a comment that Rushdie made about freedom. He said if you are only for freedom for things you agree with then you are not for freedom at all. Being for freedom is about accepting things that you actually detest.

This is what folks like Paul and the rest of the clown show do not seem to understand. Having a personal belief is one thing. Forcing that personal belief on others is something completely different.

If you do not like alcohol ... don't drink. Just because you believe it is some kind of religious duty to abstain from alcohol is not a reason to force that belief on others.

 

Hate to break it to you, but when it comes to wingnuttery McCain defines it on foreign policy and he was the establishment guy. No way was a guy like him with those views getting elected in the wake of the Bush years and all those wars. As for Romney, the reality is that it wasn't any "fringe" positions that cost him the election, it was the fact he was a wealthy businessman and the Obama machine used that against him and conducted a campaign of class warfare. Also the fact that Romney's people ran a very poor campaign and Romney said a lot of stupid stuff that had nothing to do with him trying to appeal to the GOP base and everything to do with the fact that, well, he says stupid things. London Olympic comments? That thing he said about the 49% to the guy at the fundraiser in private? Yeah, nothing to do with trying to appeal to the base, that was all him. He was just a bad candidate. He was the supposedly "electable" choice by the establishment and it turned out he had no ability to connect with people, was out of touch, phony and plastic. He put his dog on the roof of a car! I guess he did that to get a Tea Party vote

 

Huh? I guess you weren't paying attention, because this comment is just flat out wrong. His dad criticized Bush while he was President constantly and consistently for years. He refused to even endorse Bush, publicly, over this kind of stuff. Rand was a nobody when Bush was in office, so if he did criticize Bush at the time no one cared... How could he criticize Bush and you'd know about it when he wasn't even in politics at the time!? That said, he did give speeches for his father in 2008 introducing him as Bush was leaving office and he did criticize Bush at the time, it's just no one cared to quote him on it or film it and put it online because he was nobody. Also, the video that sparked the entire controversy with his comments about Cheney was an OLD video that resurfaced.

As for gambling and prostitution, isn't it possible that these are such small issues compared to others at NATIONAL level that it's why he doesn't talk about them. He's probably rarely, if ever, asked. Things like, you know, drones, NSA spying are way more significant. Even cannabis is because there are FEDERAL laws that greatly impact that issue. With the case of prostitution and gambling for the most part that's something left to STATE AND LOCAL level, which Rand Paul is not as a U.S. Senator. You might as well be saying "HEY HOW COME RAND PAUL ISN'T TALKING ABOUT SEAT BELT LAWS!"

 

I like his position on foreign military entanglements, he is downright opposed to neo-conservatism, and he is about the only right-sider to call a spade a spade when it comes to Cheney/Iraq/Halliburton. His libertarian views on the economy are, however, child-like.

 

You keep telling yourself that and we'll keep winning national elections.

Bull. His opposition to a national version of RomneyCare, his extreme pro-gun and anti-abortion stances, his view on immigration, climate change . . . all of those were flip-flopped from his earlier positions when he decided to appeal to the fringe element of the party, and the *********s.

The American people didn't want those policies, and saw that he was a phony for adopting those policies just to get nominated.

Do you really think that if Romney was not trying to please the *********s he would have said he wouldn't take $10 in tax cuts for every $1 in tax hikes?

Give me a break.

 

Wrong. Ron Paul was as quiet as a church mouse over the Iraq War. Especially once it started.

He wasn't a nobody in 2008, at the end of Bush's term.

I'm just saying that he cherry-picks the Libertarian issues.

Why did he spend 21 hours talking about the government using drones over America, but not one minute about corporations using drones over America?

 

Um, no...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEBfB2R7azo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE1ie4-E2H0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNb_610L0GE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thw_EvNEcSc

Just do a simple Google or YouTube search and you'll find tons of statements, interviews, etc. of him opposing the war. If people were paying attention to him then like they are now there would be many more.

Yes, he was. He was only Ron Paul's son. People didn't care what he thought. He didn't run for Senate until 2010. People only knew him, vaguely, from speeches he gave introducing his father at a few of his father's campaign events, most of which the media didn't move as they mostly ignored Ron Paul in 2008.

Because it's more important and dangerous that the government is using drones? Because the government is bound by the Constitution? Because Rand Paul is part of the government and therefore is job as a Senator is to make changes to it?

I mean, really? Your arguments simply aren't credible and based on fact. You're just looking for things to attack him on. Seriously, what's more important? Gambling and prostitution, an issue mostly dealt with at state and local level, or the use of drones by our military to kill people, an entirely federal issue? What you call "cherry picking" is in reality simply addressing the more important issues and the issue that have more relevance for a politician to deal with at federal level. 'OMFG RAND PAUL!!!!1111!!! WHY AREN'T YOU ADDRESSING ANIMAL SHELTERS AND PARKING TICKETS!!!!???!!!"

Give me a break.

 

I'm all for these poor obese children to work and exercise. Before they all get carpol tunnel syndrome from texting and taking off their clothes [ thanks hippies] too much, VD epidemic now poor kids.

Paul is senile and his son is greedy and for whatever keeps him in power. Paul should retire too about 35 years ago,lol. Term limits please. Enough damage in 4 yr.s much less 84 like the old cougar Pelosi kept wiped down and guided his fingers to the voting button. Hitlery and Pelosi two headed beast.

 

Rand Paul touches himself at night...

 

News flash: Romney had a very specific base. Those people supported him and DIDN'T CARE about those positions. The rest of the party NEVER did until they absolutely had to because he was clearly the winner eventually... But they never wanted him. The Tea Party never supported him. They cycled through every single candidate and even back to one before Romney got the nomination, that's how much they didn't want the guy. All this means one thing, he was an awful candidate. He was a bad candidate and what they destroyed him on had NOTHING TO DO with any changes in his positions and everything to do with who he came across as: plastic, phony, out of touch super rich Wall Street guy. Class warfare won the day. Also, he couldn't legitimately attack Obama on his greatest weakness: ObamaCare.

I would suggest reading "Double Down." It has a Liberal bias, but it accurately portrays Romney's missteps.

- - - Updated - - -

As he should.

 

Oh, I'm sure he was against the war, and dutifully made his little House floor speeches denouncing it, but other than that he stayed in the background, and didn't make waves. He didn't use any Congressional parliamentary devices to slow down, stall, or disrupt a single thing related to the Iraq War. He didn't rally his Libertarian base. He did what he always does.

What's dangerous about it?

Corporations aren't bound by the Constitution? They can invade our right to privacy?

Do Senators only concern themselves with government actions and operations?

Why does gambling and prostitution have to be dealt with only at a state and local level?

The whole idea of drones is to kill people without putting our military people at risk. I'm fine with it. I'm not fine with corporations OR government using drones to spy on me in my backyard. Rand Paul had ZIP to say about that. He's a phony.

 

More revisionist nonsense.

Both McCain and Romney have long held moderate views on immigration: but what were the positions they took in their primaries to appeal to the wingnuts?

Both McCain and Romney understand what the debt ceiling actually is: but what were their primary positions?

Both McCain and Romney have supported and voted for stimulus spending: but what were their primary positions?

I could go on.