This isn't debate team. This is the internet.
How about this, oh great elevator of political debate? It is my highly subjective opinion, the expression of which is SURELY UNPRECEDENTED on this board or in fact on the internet as a whole, that Rand Paul is a lightweight, who has been cast into the spotlight because of his pedigree and not any native talent.
Without his pop's name and fund-raising apparatus, he's an eye doctor in Kentucky, bitching to his neighbors about how unfair taxes are to productive members of society like himself.
I'm not a particular fan of political dynasties . . . which is one reason I supported Barack Obama—who rose to prominence from humble beginnings, who achieved success at elite institutions without name or wealth; and who, if untested, had at least been elected to office—against Hilary Clinton, whose qualifications and intellect still dwarf those of the junior, to say nothing of the senior, Mr. Paul. I do agree that those dynasties are a fact of life, and that their scions should be judged on their merits.
Rand Paul is like the kid that I went to school with who was happy to smoke a joint with you and bull**** about the 4th amendment, but who was an economic royalist who believed that wealth equaled virtue, and that he and his trust fund bros were entitled to the place in society that some forebear of theirs had earned. His senate career, to date, has consisted of some combination of grandstanding, spotlight grabbing, and clowning himself in order to appeal to Republican primary voters. Check out the legislation he's co-sponsored. It's mostly grandstanding silliness, in some cases overlapped by economic extremism. Gold? Repealing cross-state pollution regulations? Yikes.
Rand Paul doesn't like drone strikes. Good for him. Neither do I. There are more things that I probably agree with Rand Paul about. The reason that I would never consider voting for him, even if I might have more political opinions in common with him than with any other Republican contender, is that his economic policies are basically a cut n' paste of the worst recycled trickle-down republican dross, wrapped in a deeply cynical bow of economic freedom and liberty.
Rand Paul doesn't think there's a critical national interest at play in the Syrian civil war. Neither do I. But his opening lines last night:
Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida. Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.
are pure histrionic horse****, predictably small-minded, and unworthy of someone who seems to want a seat at the grownup table. If you think that the only problem with his tapdance about the Civil Rights Act was that he filp-flopped, we're probably not going to get very far in this discussion. I'll be happy if Rand Paul moves the needle in the Republican party with regard to drug laws or teh ghey marriage or overseas military intervention, but I think that demographic factors are going to move that needle anyway.
How about this, oh great elevator of political debate? It is my highly subjective opinion, the expression of which is SURELY UNPRECEDENTED on this board or in fact on the internet as a whole, that Rand Paul is a lightweight, who has been cast into the spotlight because of his pedigree and not any native talent.
This is where I was confused. You said he was a "joke" which I was wondering why you thought that. After asking you 4 times and still not getting a substantive answer, I accept that you have changed your argument to "he's a political lightweight who was elected because of his dad." OK.
Without his pop's name and fund-raising apparatus, he's an eye doctor in Kentucky, bitching to his neighbors about how unfair taxes are to productive members of society like himself.
Talk about a simplistic viewpoint. You basically suggest that there is no room in congress for people who believe in limited government and low taxes. You suggest that there is no room in congress for anyone who tries to legislate based on his/her interpretation of the Constitution. Because Rand Paul is a contrarian, he could have NEVER won without his last name. Of course, this doesn't explain how folks like Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, and Justin Amash got elected. I must have missed the "Amash dynasty"
I'm not a particular fan of political dynasties . . . which is one reason I supported Barack Obama—who rose to prominence from humble beginnings, who achieved success at elite institutions without name or wealth; and who, if untested, had at least been elected to office—against Hilary Clinton, whose qualifications and intellect still dwarf those of the junior, to say nothing of the senior, Mr. Paul. I do agree that those dynasties are a fact of life, and that their scions should be judged on their merits.
So we're proud of Barack Obama for his humble beginnings, and I assume youa re referring to his success in undergrad and law school? You act as if Rand is some spoiled rich kid who was handed everything he has. Let's ignore the idea that he has an MD. They just hand those out to folks, i hear.
The idea that Hilary Clinton is some sort of intellectual giant is hilarious. Her whole career has been a national healthcare system that failed and a Bengazi coverup that a non-corrupt government would have fired her for. To be honest, I don't know a ton about her accomplishments because I haven't cared enough to go looking for them. I know she doesn't understand how a successful economy should be run, and I know should couldn't give two ****s about individual liberty. I know she isn't even on the same intellectual planet as Dr. Paul. But hey, she's a Clinton, and she's a woman, so she will probably be President.
Rand Paul is like the kid that I went to school with who was happy to smoke a joint with you and bull**** about the 4th amendment, but who was an economic royalist who believed that wealth equaled virtue, and that he and his trust fund bros were entitled to the place in society that some forebear of theirs had earned.
What are you even talking about? Do you have any evidence to suggest what you're saying is remotely true? Or is it just typical bull ****? You do understand that his father never accepted a pay raise while the rest of congress voted to raise theirs, he doesn't participate in the government pension program. He never accepted medicare or medicaid as a doctor - but would treat those patients for free if that is all they had. Of all people that could instill personal responsibility values into their kid, it's Ron Paul. I don't know what you're talking about with the "trust fund friends are entitled..." comment. But perhaps you have some substance to back it up that I'm not aware of. I'm happy to read it.
It sounds like you're just upset because he doesn't believe that poor people are entitled to anything that anyone else isn't entitled too. I know you are liberal, so you're going to have a problem with that. Nothing I can do to change your mind - but him having a constitutional and free market econommic philosophy that you disagree with doesn't make him a "lightweight."
Of course, we both know (I think) that Rand isn't anything close to a free market capitalist (unfortunately). His budget calls for some $3.8 trillion, so he doesn't indend on slowing down the spending machine much.
His senate career, to date, has consisted of some combination of grandstanding, spotlight grabbing, and clowning himself in order to appeal to Republican primary voters. Check out the legislation he's co-sponsored. It's mostly grandstanding silliness, in some cases overlapped by economic extremism. Gold? Repealing cross-state pollution regulations? Yikes.
This is where, once again, you show your hypocrisy. You're attacking Rand's record as Senator in his 2.5 years. Of course, I suppose that wasn't a huge issue for you with Mr. Obama, whom I'd love to go on and on about his senate credentials when he won the Presidency of the United States, but unfortunately, there is nothing to go on about.
You're upset about his "spotlight grabbing", yet you agree with what he used to grab the spotlight (drones). That was a highly successful political move, and one a lightweight wouldn't have been able to pull off. Of course, I appreciated it for its substance, for which he received a response from the US AG.
You're upset about gold? You act as if gold is some crazy insane philisophical discussion that is so removed from reality that anyone who mentions it shouldn't be taken seriously. Only, gold was our money all the way until Nixon. And when gold was our money, our money didn't lose any value. Since federal reserve notes became our money, our money has lost 96% of its value. LOL at the cooky Rand for asking the question about going back to a sound currency.
Some other things he's co-sponsored are ammendments to the NDAA, which doesn't allow the US Military to indefinitely detain US citizens on US soil. Again - KOOKY!
He sponsored a federal reserve transperency act so that the congress can have some oversight into the instution that can literally print trillions of dollars out of thin air. - WHAT A NUTJOB!
Or his crazy 4th amendment restoration act, after the NSA spying program was revealed. What a loser for him trying to fight a massive surveilance program. Who needs civil liberties?
I could go on, but I'm running out of time so I'll move on. Just know that Paul has done a lot more in his Senate years than Mr. Obama, who you fully supported.
Rand Paul doesn't like drone strikes. Good for him. Neither do I. There are more things that I probably agree with Rand Paul about. The reason that I would never consider voting for him, even if I might have more political opinions in common with him than with any other Republican contender, is that his economic policies are basically a cut n' paste of the worst recycled trickle-down republican dross, wrapped in a deeply cynical bow of economic freedom and liberty.
I'm not sure what to respond to here, can you offer some more details about his economic details that would make the world end? Is his $3.8 trillion budget not enough spending for you?
Rand Paul doesn't think there's a critical national interest at play in the Syrian civil war. Neither do I. But his opening lines last night:
Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaida, 12 years after 3,000 Americans were killed by al-Qaida, President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaida. Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. We fail to see a national security interest in a war between a leader who gasses his own citizens and Islamic rebels who are killing Christians.
I didn't watch the speech yet - haven't had time. But just to be clear, you're dogging him because he is on the same position as you, but you don't like how he worded it. Have you listened to the President in the last month?
The fact is, the US government literally spends money to arm our enemies. Then it spends money to go fight those same enemies. It's happened time and time again and it's about to happen in Syria.
are pure histrionic horse****, predictably small-minded, and unworthy of someone who seems to want a seat at the grownup table. If you think that the only problem with his tapdance about the Civil Rights Act was that he filp-flopped, we're probably not going to get very far in this discussion. I'll be happy if Rand Paul moves the needle in the Republican party with regard to drug laws or teh ghey marriage or overseas military intervention, but I think that demographic factors are going to move that needle anyway.
Again, haven't seen the speech. But you have to keep in mind he the majority of folks he is talking to and trying to reach out to are simple-minded to downright stupid voters, and therefore he is simplifying the argument. That is one thing his father could never do. Ron could not simplify things that is easy for the "they hate us because we're free" crowd or the "cut taxes and spending will solve all economic problems" crowd could understand. Rand is playing the political game much better than Ron ever did.
I'm out of time. Will continue to discuss further. But I think the reason you are so against Rand is because of partisanship, not actual substance. To be clear, Rand and you probably agree a lot on foreign policy and civil liberties.
I have serious doubts about Rand and he has not won me over yet. I question his authenticity, becaus ehe has flip flopped. But for every 1 think he does that pisses me off, he does 3 things that make me believe in him. We will see how things play out in the next few years.
