Jump to content
Hugo Stiglitz

Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jack Burton said:

Yawn

Wow, stooping to using the infantile response of one of the most ridiculed posters in Shag/Surly history.  In the words of Trump:  winning.

Oh, and you know who is a Libertarian?  Kurt motherfuckin' Russell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul has changed less than the political environment.

Rand Paul, like many libertarians, appears admirable when they are the contrarian voice.  If no one really thinks we are going to ditch on NATO, it's perfectly cool for Paul to lob shit-bombs at our allies.  It provokes thought and challenges our assumptions.  When he does it shortly after Trump goes on a fuck-the-world tour in Europe, it's not longer merely academic provocation.  When his views actually have a chance of becoming policy, led by a pro-Russian moron in the White House, we start seriously considering the ramifications and are appalled.  The devil's advocate has value, as long as you don't think the devil will win. 

Has he been saying anything about the ICE detentions and family separations at the border? To me, that would be an opportunity to speak out against government abuses despite Republican blowback.

Edited by Tuco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Paul has changed less than the political environment.

Rand Paul, like many libertarians, appears admirable when they are the contrarian voice.  If no one really thinks we are going to ditch on NATO, it's perfectly cool for Paul to lob shit-bombs at our allies.  It provokes thought and challenges our assumptions.  When he does it shortly after Trump goes on a fuck-the-world tour in Europe, it's not longer merely academic provocation.  When his views actually have a chance of becoming policy, led by a pro-Russian moron in the White House, we start seriously considering the ramifications and are appalled.  The devil's advocate has value, as long as you don't think the devil will win. 

Has he been saying anything about the ICE detentions and family separations at the border? To me, that would be an opportunity to speak out against government abuses despite Republican blowback.

So he was always just bloviating and never really willing to standup against the establishment?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tuco said:

... Has he been saying anything about the ICE detentions and family separations at the border? To me, that would be an opportunity to speak out against government abuses despite Republican blowback.

 

Just now, Washpark said:

So he was always just bloviating and never really willing to standup against the establishment?  

Looking at his official Senate website, it appears that the focus of his most recent activities has primarily been fighting all of Congress to pass a balanced budget, opposing adminstration appointments for the CIA, State Dept and NSA for various reasons, trying to rectify civil liberty abuses in the DHS including warrantless smartphone searches at the border, gutting indefinite detention of American citizens provisions in the NDAA renewal, and such.  Typical lunatic libertarians!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bernorange said:

 

Looking at his official Senate website, it appears that the focus of his most recent activities has primarily been fighting all of Congress to pass a balanced budget, opposing adminstration appointments for the CIA, State Dept and NSA for various reasons, trying to rectify civil liberty abuses in the DHS including warrantless smartphone searches at the border, gutting indefinite detention of American citizens provisions in the NDAA renewal, and such.  Typical lunatic libertarians!

Well, the fact that he supports our POTUS meeting privately with the leader of our greatest threat kinda blows all that shit out of the water, but you do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if folks are going to rail on Rand for not "standing up to the establishment/administration", they should really do some basic research first, because just a few minutes of reading shows that Sen. Paul regularly stands up to the establishment/administration on multiple issues.

The Pauls have always had a different perspective on foreign policy and diplomacy.  They have always believed in dialogue and peace.  I wasn't aware that Rand approved Trump meeting with Putin privately.  It doesn't surprise me or particularly trouble me that he supports a meeting and open dialogue (though it should be done "properly", not privately, IMO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bernorange said:

 

Looking at his official Senate website, it appears that the focus of his most recent activities has primarily been fighting all of Congress to pass a balanced budget, opposing adminstration appointments for the CIA, State Dept and NSA for various reasons, trying to rectify civil liberty abuses in the DHS including warrantless smartphone searches at the border, gutting indefinite detention of American citizens provisions in the NDAA renewal, and such.  Typical lunatic libertarians!

So, nothing about the federal government seizing families and separating them from their children, despite many of them following the law and the remainder violating minor laws?  Nothing about the President tweeting that due process should be ignored for these families?

Yeah, I think that's being a pussy in the face of potential Republican blowback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tuco said:

So, nothing about the federal government seizing families and separating them from their children, ...

It doesn't appear to be his highest priority.  Best I could find with some searching:

Quote

Republican Sen. Rand Paul released a statement that read, “I strongly support enforcing our immigration laws, securing our border, and protecting our country. At the same time, I oppose the government separating families.”

http://www.wave3.com/story/38460811/rand-paul-mitch-mcconnell-issue-statements-on-immigration-uproar-family-separation

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found one statement he made, not any official release or anything like that.

Quote

Republican Sen. Rand Paul released a statement that read, “I strongly support enforcing our immigration laws, securing our border, and protecting our country. At the same time, I oppose the government separating families.”

Powerful stuff.

edit - Beaten by seconds

Edited by Huckleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bernorange said:

 

Looking at his official Senate website, it appears that the focus of his most recent activities has primarily been fighting all of Congress to pass a balanced budget, opposing adminstration appointments for the CIA, State Dept and NSA for various reasons, trying to rectify civil liberty abuses in the DHS including warrantless smartphone searches at the border, gutting indefinite detention of American citizens provisions in the NDAA renewal, and such.  Typical lunatic libertarians!

What an animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will answer my own previous question, though, he did say something about the tariffs and farmer welfare.

I would say normally that tweeting isn't the way to communicate, but well...

Although he should have tagged Trump.

Edited by Huckleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, bernorange said:

 

Looking at his official Senate website, it appears that the focus of his most recent activities has primarily been fighting all of Congress to pass a balanced budget, opposing adminstration appointments for the CIA, State Dept and NSA for various reasons, trying to rectify civil liberty abuses in the DHS including warrantless smartphone searches at the border, gutting indefinite detention of American citizens provisions in the NDAA renewal, and such.  Typical lunatic libertarians!

How many times has he voted against the Trump administration’s agenda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think he's far from the worst Republican in office.  That's not saying much.

According to 538's ranking that was mentioned earlier, he has the lowest agreement with Trump of any GOP Senator, lower than McCain and Corker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

How many times has he voted against the Trump administration’s agenda?

More than any other GOP Senator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

How many times has he voted against the Trump administration’s agenda?

123

 

35 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Well, if folks are going to rail on Rand for not "standing up to the establishment/administration", they should really do some basic research first, because just a few minutes of reading shows that Sen. Paul regularly stands up to the establishment/administration on multiple issues.

The Pauls have always had a different perspective on foreign policy and diplomacy.  They have always believed in dialogue and peace.  I wasn't aware that Rand approved Trump meeting with Putin privately.  It doesn't surprise me or particularly trouble me that he supports a meeting and open dialogue (though it should be done "properly", not privately, IMO).

my website says all these lovely positions too but if I don't vote that way then who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, bernorange said:

His dad was vilified for standing fast on principle and not playing the game.

He is vilified for playing the game and not standing fast on principle like his dad did.

Actually, his dad is vilified for being an astounding racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Washpark - So you are doubling down on your weak attack on Rand's character even though evidence has already been submitted that refutes the basis of your premise?  smh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Washpark said:

Not trying to be dense, but what evidence?

Do you have Anastasis on your ignore/block list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bernorange said:

Give me a break.  "Yeah, those were my newsletters, but I have no idea how all that racist shit got in there."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that "I'm not racist but my movement acted racist to attract racists to our side" necessarily improves one's moral and ethical position over simply being racist. If your best defense against a charge of racism is that you're not racist but rather cynically appealed to racists with racism in order to increase your number of supporters, that raises a lot more questions about your principles than it answers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m more concerned about the voters of Kentucky that managed to produce both Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell on the US Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The newsletter issue is certainly a blot on Ron Paul's record.  I don't argue that it isn't.  But they (the newsletters) are not evidence that Ron Paul is a "an astounding racist" as @wildcat09 asserted.  There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Do you have Anastasis on your ignore/block list?

I usually skip his post.

Saying Rand is one of the least supporters of the administration's policies isn't much solid ground for such a politician who has made his career out of being so principled about his positions. It only indicates that he hasn't bent over as far as the other republicans for Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lulz.  TDS = the new "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".

Rand Paul is doing the same thing he's always been doing - fighting for a balanced budget and civil liberties and advocating for diplomacy in foreign relations.  Rand should have rebuked Trump for meeting Putin privately, but he didn't.  His op-ed arguing in favor of open dialogue and diplomacy is consistent with what he's been advocating for years.  But you folks are on your way down the Brisket slide with TDS so there is no rational thought or discussion to be had any more it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are minimizing his failure to criticize Trump's meeting privately with only Putin and a Russian (nationality, not language) translator in the room. That is an absolutely huge deal and Paul's silence about it is a much bigger deal than you're portraying here.

Also, what is your take on his attack on John Brennan's security clearance? Paul may have started this week thinking "diplomacy with enemies=good" but he very rapidly allowed it to morph into "defend Trump and attack his detractors" in a very public way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have any issues with Rand Paul that I didn't have years ago.  I think he is probably more of an ideological purists than most on the Hill, but he is being pragmatic in his dealings with Trump - which means remaining silent on some Trump's pet causes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you are not with me you are against me."  -JimmyJazz, July 26, 2018

@jimmyjazz - I dare you to support your insinuation that I am not "American".  Please do show your work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand advocates for retaliation against former career public servants that speak out against the Trump Regime in public.

He lost his “constitutional conservative” card right there. 

He’s dead to me now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

"If you are not with me you are against me."  -JimmyJazz, July 26, 2018

@jimmyjazz - I dare you to support your insinuation that I am not "American".  Please do show your work.

Thanks for the headstone engraving.

You know exactly what I meant.  You might be conflicted, but you aren't stupid.

Edited by jimmyjazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul: Iraq was a mistake. 

Also Rand Paul: The US can/should use military force against Iran for developing nuclear weapons. 

—————————

Rand Paul: Trump is right to engage in diplomacy and sit down with hostile nations. Dialogue is always preferable to war. 

Also Rand Paul: the US should withdraw from the UN

 

I mean, I could do this all day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Huckleberry said:

You are minimizing his failure to criticize Trump's meeting privately with only Putin and a Russian (nationality, not language) translator in the room. That is an absolutely huge deal and Paul's silence about it is a much bigger deal than you're portraying here.

Also, what is your take on his attack on John Brennan's security clearance? Paul may have started this week thinking "diplomacy with enemies=good" but he very rapidly allowed it to morph into "defend Trump and attack his detractors" in a very public way.

I didn't minimize anything.  I stated repeatedly that I took issue with the failure to object to the private meeting.  It looks to me like Rand is trying to "play the game" for some political points with Trump.  To what end, I don't know.

With respect to Brennan, Rand has been on the warpath for Brennan, Clapper, et. al. since the Snowden deal blew up (long before Trump came into office).  You might recall Rand's famous "talking filibuster" - something that had not occurred in the Senate in a long ass time.  That happened at Brennan's CIA chief nomination hearing in 2013.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rand-paul-says-hes-satisfied-with-obama-administrations-response-on-drones/2013/03/07/9b20aa44-875d-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?utm_term=.e7c9b808af65

He also pushed for Brennan to be fired back in 2014:

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/rand-paul-fire-john-brennan-cia-109661

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm aware of his justified attacks on Brennan in the past. The issue is with the timing of the ramp-up of his current crusade against Brennan. Is it merely because Paul actually didn't realize that former CIA directors maintain their security clearance? I find it hard to believe that a Senator who has staked his name on investigating the overreach of intelligence agencies didn't realize something like that.

And now you see more of it. He describes Brennan as "Trump hater" instead of something that has anything to do with the reasons Paul claims are the actual basis for disliking him. He is appealing to Trump supporters, he has been a joke this week.

Edited by Huckleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing he finally saw a window of opportunity in support for action.  It's not like the cause is new or he hasn't been advocating for Brennan to be fired and disgraced for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we just discussed with respect to his father, cynical alliances are a terrible idea. Are you suggesting that he's merely acting like a Trump supporter so can get the support of Trump supporters? His dad's newsletters did the same kind of thing. I guess tree, fruit, all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bernorange said:

The newsletter issue is certainly a blot on Ron Paul's record.  I don't argue that it isn't.  But they (the newsletters) are not evidence that Ron Paul is a "an astounding racist" as @wildcat09 asserted.  There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

This was less than a month ago. Funny how this non-racist keeps having racist things published in his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

As we just discussed with respect to his father, cynical alliances are a terrible idea. Are you suggesting that he's merely acting like a Trump supporter so can get the support of Trump supporters? His dad's newsletters did the same kind of thing. I guess tree, fruit, all that.

No, I did not suggest that at all.  I do not know what motivates Rand.  I speculated that his omission on rebuking Trump for meeting with Putin privately might be a play for political points with Trump (himself, not his supporters).  The Brennan stuff looks like opportunism to achieve a goal that he's been after for years.

 

@wildcat09 - I don't even know what I'm look at in your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bernorange said:

No, I did not suggest that at all.  I do not know what motivates Rand.  I speculated that his omission on rebuking Trump for meeting with Putin privately might be a play for political points with Trump (himself, not his supporters).  The Brennan stuff looks like opportunism to achieve a goal that he's been after for years.

 

@wildcat09 - I don't even know what I'm look at in your post.

Seriously? You don't see those extremely racist caricatures together with the anti-Semitic "CULTURAL MARXISM!"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Actually, his dad is vilified for being an astounding racist.

Come on.  Ron Paul had nothing to do with the Ron Paul Political Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

Come on.  Ron Paul had nothing to do with the Ron Paul Political Report.

Or his Facebook account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I did not suggest that at all.  I do not know what motivates Rand.  I speculated that his omission on rebuking Trump for meeting with Putin privately might be a play for political points with Trump (himself, not his supporters).  The Brennan stuff looks like opportunism to achieve a goal that he's been after for years.
 
[mention=291]wildcat09[/mention] - I don't even know what I'm look at in your post.
Right, he is trying to capitalize on that opportunity by appealing to Trump supporters when he should NOT be a Trump supporter himself. Even if we pretend for a moment that Trump is not beholden to Putin in any way, anyone with any knowledge of Trump would know that he's not meeting in private with him in order to achieve diplomatic success on behalf of the American people. He's doing it because he believes as the Executive he should be able to do anything he wants at any time. He is an authoritarian in every sense of the word.

Rand Paul portrays himself as consistently principled and as a champion of liberty and opponent of executive power. If that's true then he should be a Trump hater himself. Yet he is using that term pejoratively against another to score political points for a single action he wants to take.

That is absolutely spineless and the exact opposite of principled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...