Sorry, real life beckoned temporarily.
But, with something between a sigh and a yawn . . .
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.
Maybe I was just simplifying my argument so "simple-minded to downright stupid voters" could understand it.
Seriously. If you'd like for me to explain how "joke" is a figure of speech, and could be understood to be shorthand for "lightweight and unaccomplished," I will.
Definition #2, according to M-W is "something not to be taken seriously." Do you need me to parse that for you?
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.
Yeah, there are NONE of those in congress.
You suggest that there is no room in congress for anyone who tries to legislate based on his/her interpretation of the Constitution.
Nope, no room. Congress is to be composed solely of gibbering illiterates, and/or animals.
Because Rand Paul is a contrarian, he could have NEVER won without his last name.
What, you mean like Prince?
Well, not "never." But, in any case, not because he is a contrarian.
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 don't even know where to start with that. Ted Cruz was not the favored establishment candidate, but was hardly an unqualified nobody. I despise Cruz's politics and his style, but he is a person of some accomplishment and a veritable philosopher-king next to Rand Paul.
If Rand Smith, ophthalmologist, got Club for Growth and FreedomWorks to dump money into his primary campaign, he probably would have gotten elected. But that's just what I'm saying: is Rand Paul such an effective delivery device for a Tea Party message that, without his name, he'd attract money and attention in a way that dozens, if not hundreds, of unsuccessful primary candidates do not? Is he that charismatic and energetic? Does his message distinguish itself from, say, those of Lindsey Graham's primary opponents of the last couple of election cycles? What is it that is so unique about him?
Besides, Amash and the senior Paul are/were House members. House and Senate races are apples and oranges.
The idea that Hilary Clinton is some sort of intellectual giant is hilarious.
Well, degrees certainly aren't everything, but Clinton does have a J.D. from Yale Law and published in her area of expertise. She's been accused of being a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.
But, a giant? I don't know. Just that she doesn't sound like a crank-addled spider monkey spewing conspiracy theories is probably enough for me.
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.
Her whole career, huh?
To be honest, I don't know a ton about her accomplishments because I haven't cared enough to go looking for them.
Maybe, as has been suggested, you should check out her Wikipedia page. It's a pretty quick read.
I know she isn't even on the same intellectual planet as Dr. Paul.
Since she hasn't been goldbugging and predicting hyperinflation for the past three decades, this is a safe assumption.
But hey, she's a Clinton, and she's a woman, so she will probably be President.
Darn women, always getting elected President.
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.
I suppose his handling of his government salary and benefits is admirable. He must've netted enough from his bigoted and apocalyptic newsletters to make up the loss.
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.
I'm extrapolating based on the fact that Rand Paul's budget seems to be an instrument designed to make the very rich even richer. I will repeat: the fact that he's a departure from GOP conventional wisdom on foreign policy does not mean that he is some kind of outsider, speaking truth to power. There's a reason that he is the fair-haired boy of FreedomWorks and Club for Growth. They are power. A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for plutocracy.
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 economic philosophy that you disagree with doesn't make him a "lightweight."
This is where I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding Rand Paul, me, or the thinkers who supposedly influenced the Drs. Paul. Many of them (Hayek, Friedman) accepted the legitimacy and necessity of social welfare. The mechanisms they promoted for effecting it were different, but they accepted the necessity of a social safety net. It's only the most disconnected kind of libertarian utopians who claim that it's not in the interest of a modern, wealthy society to guarantee the protection of its citizens against the vicissitudes of the market.
No, me thinking he's a lightweight has to do with the fact that he's a political legacy who brings nothing new to the table except some truly weird beliefs about monetary policy—and that's according to the AEI, not me. Everything else is just boilerplate—halving income taxes on the wealthiest, getting rid of cap gains and dividend taxes, etc.
More lightweight stuff? How about warning of the NAFTA superhighway? The North American Union? Returning to the gold standard?
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.
So dismantling the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD doesn't even rate an attaboy from you?
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.
Yeah, Obama didn't have much of a track record in the Senate. If you want to compare their public service, though…Obama did serve in elected office for several years before being elected to the Senate, did work in public policy, did teach constitutional law at UC. Rand Paul treated glaucoma.
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.
Oh, right. You mean the part where he pretended that it took 13 hours of filibuster to get an answer to a question that had, in fact, been answered in testimony that morning? I applaud him for bringing attention to the issue. I giggle at his grandstanding.
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.
I didn't say that. These folks pretty much did, though.
Sound currency backed by a relatively-valued, finite resource extracted from beneath the earth? That DOES sound like a recipe for stability. Besides, we never had an economic bust when we were on the gold standard . . . er, wait.
By the way . . . still waiting for that hyperinflation.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Civil Rights Act, too.
