s0crates Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 There are things about Rand Paul that worry me, but I still find myself agreeing with him often enough, which is more than I can say for the other Republican hopefuls. I tend to think there are two kinds of conservatives: The good small government kind who opposes state power, and the bad kind who supports the military-industrial-intelligence complex. The good kind are sometimes called libertarian, the bad kind neoconservative. You can tell the difference between the two by asking what they think about things like the NSA and prisons. The conservative who opposes the police state is the good kind, the other is one of the fascists who has taken over the GOP. I see Paul as one of the good conservatives, and I would much rather see a GOP comprised of guys like him then the likes of Bush. Sadly I doubt the powers that be (the big money and media for example) would ever let a guy like Paul make it that far, and even if he did his stance on abortion would probably sink him. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the libertarians on a number of issues, things like education and health care for example. Its just that I respect a conservative like Paul. I can agree with him on things like protecting civil liberties and cutting our obscene military expenditures. The neo-cons, on the other hand, I cannot find common ground with them. They give me Orwellian nightmares. Put me down for anybody but them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 There are things about Rand Paul that worry me, but I still find myself agreeing with him often enough, which is more than I can say for the other Republican hopefuls. Yeah, there's things where I think he's right, too. But, it's the things where there's no way in Dallas he actually implements them. I try to mentally visualize a Rand Paul presidency with a GOP Congress. Odds that he successfully legalizes drugs? Or shrinks our military? Zero. Odds that they eliminate all taxes on billionaires and corporations, but don't worry, we'll pay for it by cutting Medicare and Social Security by 10% a year, for the next 20 years? Pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I can't get past his views on SSM or abortion. Or his view(oh, yes...pun intended)that he's a doctor. Certified by absolutely no one but himself. You gotta love those balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I can't get past his views on SSM or abortion. Or his view(oh, yes...pun intended)that he's a doctor. Certified by absolutely no one but himself. You gotta love those balls. I understand the first point, and I don't disagree. Like I said, there is a lot that worries me about him. My point is just that a small government conservative like Paul is better than the police state kind. As to the second point, I'm pretty sure Paul does have his MD, and he did practice for quite a while. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I understand the first point, and I don't disagree. Like I said, there is a lot that worries me about him. My point is just that a small government conservative like Paul is better than the police state kind. As to the second point, I'm pretty sure Paul does have his MD, and he did practice for quite a while. No? Rachel exposed his credentials & lack of certification a few months back...I'm getting ready for work & can't dig to find it right now, sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Yeah, there's things where I think he's right, too. But, it's the things where there's no way in Dallas he actually implements them. I try to mentally visualize a Rand Paul presidency with a GOP Congress. Odds that he successfully legalizes drugs? Or shrinks our military? Zero. I think you have a point, but you've overstated it. The odds are better than zero. Don't underestimate the power of the presidency.Would he be able to accomplish a complete decriminalization of drugs? I doubt it. But I have to think he could make some difference in how the FBI approaches the war on drugs, for example. Likewise with military spending. I doubt he could end the MIC, but I have to think the commander and chief can have some impact, and I'd prefer a commander and chief that wants to rein the war machine in over a warmonger like Bush. Plus I like the idea of having a guy who would veto domestic spying programs and other such assaults on our civil liberties. Odds that they eliminate all taxes on billionaires and corporations, but don't worry, we'll pay for it by cutting Medicare and Social Security by 10% a year, for the next 20 years? Pretty good.I worry about that too, as I tried to say, but wouldn't the same be so for any of the other GOP hopefuls? Remember I'm only saying that I prefer Paul's brand of conservatism to Bush's.I'm not a conservative myself of course, as you know. I would just rather have the limited government conservatives than the anti-liberals who populate our right wing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Rachel exposed his credentials & lack of certification a few months back...I'm getting ready for work & can't dig to find it right now, sorry...Okay I looked it up. There is a controversy because he let his board certification lapse in 2005. You must be thinking of that. However that doesn't mean he isn't a doctor.He got his MD from Duke in 1988. He completed his residency. He had (has?) a medical practice. That makes him a doctor, uncertified yes, and perhaps even not a very good one, but a doctor nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Rand not off to a good start. He got snippy with Savannah Guthrie today when she pressed him over previous statements. He started lecturing mid-interview. Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 In Fox News Interview, Rand Paul Declares His Old Quotes Off-Limits  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-08/in-fox-news-interview-rand-paul-declares-his-old-quotes-off-limits   What is the fastest a new candidate has imploded in recent history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Okay I looked it up. There is a controversy because he let his board certification lapse in 2005. You must be thinking of that. However that doesn't mean he isn't a doctor. He got his MD from Duke in 1988. He completed his residency. He had (has?) a medical practice. That makes him a doctor, uncertified yes, and perhaps even not a very good one, but a doctor nonetheless.  He also never finished his undergraduate degree.  I find it disturbing that as late as the late 1980s, Duke allowed people to go to Med school without a bachelor's degree. That said, props to him for finishing. There is no question about his aptitude - just the choices he's made with it.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 I wonder when this thread will have a democratic candidate other than Hillary? Hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 I wonder when this thread will have a democratic candidate other than Hillary? Hmmmm.  I was wondering the same thing. Maybe this summer? Early fall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 But who will go first?  Martin O'Malley? He seems like the type to go in early.  Jim Webb?  The Veep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 HI.  My name is Rand Paul.  Everything that I have ever said prior to today is now off limits.  Anything that I say in the future, that you will use against me, is now off limits.  All gotcha questions (thank you sister Sarah) are off limits.  Any questions about my Dad is off limits.  Anything that my staff hasn't prescreened..is off limits.  Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Actually, I'll point out that what he's saying is that he doesn't think you can hold him to the things he said, when he wasn't a politician, but was rather trying to help his father.  IMO, it's not a completely invalid point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 There are things about Rand Paul that worry me, but I still find myself agreeing with him often enough, which is more than I can say for the other Republican hopefuls. . Â Â I agree with him twice a day, in fact. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Rand Paul is not a libertarian in my eyes; he is a conservative. The Republican Party these days has moved into neo conservatism or authoritarianism, so Rand's fiscal conservatism makes people identify him more with libertarianism, but he's still very socially conservative which is not at all libertarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Rand Paul is not a libertarian in my eyes; he is a conservative. The Republican Party these days has moved into neo conservatism or authoritarianism, so Rand's fiscal conservatism makes people identify him more with libertarianism, but he's still very socially conservative which is not at all libertarian. Â Â Oh, he's a libertarian... when it comes to the issues that affect people like him. Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Hubby & I noticed that he uses his limited TV interview time to (as Sister Sarah would say) bloviate. Never answered the real questions, just the standard "I see what you're doing, and I don't like it, here's why..." ~never directly addressed his flip-flops. Wow...you're FAMILY has been involved in this campaigning thing for 3 (coming up on 4) cycles now. We thought you'd have this covered. Hard to cover BS, isn't it? You can smell it from a distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 You guys are too hard on Paul. Would you prefer Jeb? What traction does Bush have? He's only polling high; due to name recognition. Once the debates start in August; his numbers will go down. He just isn't with the actual voters. He maybe be in with the money men and establishment but they can't control the actual vote. Or can they. Hmmmm. Control the press and the money and you don't need to control the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Control the press and the money and you don't need to control the vote.Hopefully, Mittens' example will prove true again...the candidate will actually be accountable to the people, and those of us who pay attention will know. The ones who don't pay attention will hopefully get one of those "47%" comments (and if Rand doesn't start answering the direct questions soon, it'll happen), but if they don't care, the rest of us do, and we're voting for the good of all of the Nation, not just those who resonate with the candidate on the right. Rs have severely underestimated the Ds in the last 2 Presidential elections, and I urge everyone to fight to vote. Make sure you're on the rolls now, no matter which way you lean. EVERYONE, VOTE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 When Angry Joe Walsh has your back, you've probably already lost.  Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom Rand Paul's not being testy. He's fighting back against all of Obama's lovers & Hillary's supporters in the media. That's a good thing.  Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom Republican candidates have to realize that those who work for ABC, CBS, NBC, & CNN are the opposition. Male or female, treat em that way.  Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom Look, there's no difference between Savannah Guthrie or Hillary Clinton. They're both on the same team. I like that Rand Paul fights back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Control the press and the money and you don't need to control the vote.   Cruz having no problem raising money. I figure who ever the right wing decides as the anti-Bush candidate will have no problems raising money. Control the press? The right wing press is for Cruz or Rubio or Walker, not Bush. Also, the mainstream press is in Hillary's back pocket or the Democratic nominee's back pocket if not Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 When Angry Joe Walsh has your back, you've probably already lost.Is that the Eagles' Joe Walsh? I'm not on Twit. I remember the JOE WALSH FOR PRES buttons back before the '80 election, LOL Back then, he had a liberal mind. What happened to the hippies, they all went nuts! Peace, love, & good happiness stuff. ~Steve Vai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Cruz having no problem raising money. I figure who ever the right wing decides as the anti-Bush candidate will have no problems raising money. Control the press? The right wing press is for Cruz or Rubio or Walker, not Bush. Also, the mainstream press is in Hillary's back pocket or the Democratic nominee's back pocket if not Hillary.  There's money and then there is MONEY.  George W understood the difference, and it got him into the White House.  Fringe candidates like Cruz and Santorum are not going to be able to match the money raised by the person anointed as the GOP "establishment" candidate.  That person might be Jeb, it might be Walker or Rubio or someone else - but it won't be Cruz, and as the primary season wears on, he will lose momentum because of it.   Is that the Eagles' Joe Walsh? I'm not on Twit.    No.  Walsh is a jerk Tea Party congressman who served one term, lost his reelection bid, and now has a talk radio gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.