Rand Paul
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Provide an ans.... OH MY GOD... are you really going to make me crib her wiki page for you? Are you that lazy? Is that task really that difficult. Jesus tap-dancing Christ on stick.... Fine. Here are a selection of her accomplishments/record/whatever from the wikipedia article you claim to have read:
- Non-stop political activist since the 60s, focusing on children, education, and social justice, chairing and serving on the boards of any number of NPOs
- Yale JD, the most prestigious law school in the country
- Congressional Legal Counsel during Watergate
- Law Professor & Oft-Cited Legal Scholar
- First Woman Partner at the Rose Law Firm, 3rd oldest firm in the US.
- First Woman Chair of the Legal Services Corporation
- Board of Directors for Wal-Mart, TCBY, others
- Twice named one of the most influential lawyers in America
and so on yadda yadda
That's all pre-POTUS era. I hope you are capable of handling that reading for yourself.
I look forward to your dismissive handwaving.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
I am reminded once again why I tell myself not to do a lot of posting.
sturg33
I
No dismissing... I already read all of that.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Agreed!
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
Exactly
sturg33
I
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?
I think Rand Paul does about the best job of explaining libertarian positions of any national candidate I've heard in a long time. So yes, I believe he was quite good at espousing the tea party ideas. Again, you dismiss Ron Paul as a serious national figure (he only won in Texas, after all), but you credit him for the success of Rand in Kentucky. And that doesn't even begin to explain why Rand has established himself as a serious challenger for the R primary. Ron Paul has nothing to do with that. That was all Rand once he got in. You can dismiss that all you want, but political lightweights don't get to this point.
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.
Again, this doesn't say anything. I'm tired of everyone talking about how smart Hilary Clinton is. Just because she can coherently speak her liberal ideas better than someone like Sarah Palin doesn't make her intelligent. I can only go by what she has tried to do. Her whole career has been trying to improve childcare education (which you and Meta consider "accomplishments"), but these are things that I think of much like you think of the gold standard. The department of education has basically destroyed the critical thinking in this country - all it does is indoctrinate and teach to the bottom. She wans more government in education. That is so stupid to me, I can't even comprehend it. But this is a partisan debate, which I don't believe we are debating.
Since she hasn't been goldbugging and predicting hyperinflation for the past three decades, this is a safe assumption.
As far as pure intelligence is concerned, she isn't anywhere close. Dr. Paul is an MD and an economist. Hilary Clinton is a cheerleader for the state. But again, we will disagree because of partisanship. No sense in arguing.
Darn women, always getting elected President.
I suspect that had she been born with a penis, she would not be slam dunk for the 2016 nomination
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.
Ah yes - the newsletters. When in doubt - go to the newsletters! Let's ignore the idea that Dr. Paul espouses policies that would get half the minorities out of jail for drug offenses. The newsletters have been discussed. There was a few out thousands that had racial tones and remarks- it's not hard for me to believe that he didn't write them or know of them. his whole career is a complete contradiction of the idea that he is some sort of racist. Moving on.
Where Dr. Paul made his money was investments in gold and against the US dollar. He won that bet
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.
I see, so you think he is a spoiled trust fund rich kid because he doesn't believe in taking half of high earner's money. Guess what, he doesn't believe in taking half of low earner's money either. As any objective person would understand, progressive taxes are discrimination. But no, you'd rather punish them because of their success. Nevermind the fact that rich people are what support the middle class and lower class. But again, you don't agree with conservative economic principles so there is no point in continuing the debate. You're disregard for Rand is because you disagree with him politically. OK.
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.
Whether it has been accepted or not, I don't really care. I'm certain that it wasn't accepted at these levels. 99 weeks of unemployment. 20% of Americans under the poverty line and not getting out. Yes, our social welfare programs work ... to keep people poor.
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.
As I'm going through this, it's absolutely evident that you think he is a lightweight because you disagree with his policies. You should have just said that from the beginning.
So dismantling the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and HUD doesn't even rate an attaboy from you?
Not enough for me. They are wasteful programs that we survived just fine with before they were created, and we would survive just fine after. Of course, we know that will never happen - because anyone who ever speaks of eliminating some government agencies is consider a whack job. It is a nice strategy. What would ever do without the department of education? Probably avoid monstrosities like NCLB and not be considered mediocre from an education standpoint in the world's largest super power.
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.
Ha! Do you even know how Obama got into the State Senate to begin with? He used his amazing law skills to get all of his competitors kicked off the ballot. Hell of an accomplishment to be sure.
As far as before government public service, give me the doctor over the community organizer every time. I'm just glad Mr. Obama was able to wow you with such an amazing track record. Good thing he wasn't a lightweight.
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.
Hard to imagine why policy makers and rich folks would be against gold. The money printing machine would be shut down. I'm shocked there is opposition to that!
By the way . . . still waiting for that hyperinflation.
The US cumualitive inflation since 1913 is 2,260%. What $20 bought you then, you would need $472 to buy it today. You may consider that just fine over the course of 100 years. I would call you insane.
But you're right, we have managed to avoid HYPER inflation for the most part. Why? Because the US is very fortunate the world is forced to use the dollar as the world reserve. Whatever we print in the US gets dispersed globally instead of nationally, which softens the inflation hit.
Of course, we don't really know what the inflation rate is because the government decided that it's not worth accounting for food or energy in their calculations. Got that? The two things that every American uses every day, is not counted in the inflation calculator. If you do factor it, the inflation year over year is closer to 10%, not the 2% they tell us. But, you're right, that's STILL not hyper inflation.
We won't see hyper inflation until countries begin to refuse to trade oil in dollars. When that happens, I have no idea. But countries have already began threatening to. That will be very bad for our economy.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Civil Rights Act, too.
What would you like to hear?
So here we are, a long debate. It all started cause I asked you why you thought Rand Paul was a joke. The answer is clear. You disagree with his policies. That doesn't make him a joke. He is clearly a legitimate public figure in the eyes of Americans. You thinking Rand Paul is a joke is just as ridiculous to me as me saying Hilary Clinton is a joke to you. I don't believe she is. She obviously knows what she is doing politically - as does Rand. I just happen to think Hilary would be a disaster for this country, and you think Rand would be. So we move on.
After reading this thread, I don't know what I want to do anymore.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
The you are admitting to being a troll. Congratulations.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
It makes me hate politics even more, because you realize they are ALL full of **** and don't give a **** about the people. none of them. if it doesn't benefit them they don't care.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Yes, the newsletters.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make."
He also cuddled up to the militia movement, asserted that AIDS was created in a US government lab, suggested the the 1993 WTC bombing was a Mossad op, and chatted about the Trilateral Commission on a radio show run by Willis Carto.
Sounds like a real friend of "the blacks," as he refers to them, in person as well as in print.
Where Dr. Paul made his money was investments in gold and against the US dollar.
How do you know that? There's ample evidence that he made a good living in the years that the newsletter was published. He became a millionaire, in fact. Besides, do you think that it is at all strange that a guy whose investment portfolio is made up primarily of mining stocks and precious metals uses his public platform to encourage people to buy gold and return to the gold standard? I guess he's just putting his money where his mouth is, or at least putting his mouth where his money is.
You want to convince me of his intellectual heft. I'm certainly convinced that he's smart enough to know that exploiting racism and paranoia is a, er, gold mine.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make."
He also cuddled up to the militia movement, asserted that AIDS was created in a US government lab, suggested the the 1993 WTC bombing was a Mossad op, and chatted about the Trilateral Commission on a radio show run by Willis Carto.
Sounds like a real friend of "the blacks," as he refers to them, in person as well as in print.
Where Dr. Paul made his money was investments in gold and against the US dollar.
How do you know that? There's ample evidence that he made a good living in the years that the newsletter was published. He became a millionaire, in fact. Besides, do you think that it is at all strange that a guy whose investment portfolio is made up primarily of mining stocks and precious metals uses his public platform to encourage people to buy gold and return to the gold standard? I guess he's just putting his money where his mouth is, or at least putting his mouth where his money is.
You want to convince me of his intellectual heft. I'm certainly convinced that he's smart enough to know that exploiting racism and paranoia is a, er, gold mine.
sturg33
I
I've seen those excerpts from newsletters a million times. I believe he didn't write them. I believe his whole career illustrates that. You can think I'm naive, and that is fine. He has taken responsibility for them being published without his review.
As far as his gold investments, I know he has made a fortune because of his portfolio. Forbes does a yearly article on how crazy his portfolio is, and frankly - how dangerous it is. But also notes he consistently outperforms the market considerably. I'm guessing this year has been a bit tougher for him.
But you have it backwards with the "putting his money where his mouth is." If the government stopped the printing presses like he calls for them to do, gold would be the one to suffer. The reason gold is so valuable is because it is a hedge against the dollar.
As far as I can tell, he made very little money on his news letter. He basically paid no attention to it and let some of his radical workers handle all of it. He made good money as an OBGYN, his books, and decent money as a congressman (remember the whole pay raise thing). And he has done exceptionally well in his investments.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Paul may not have written them, but I don't think they're too far from his own political beliefs, and I highly doubt that he wouldn't have read most if not all of them. Whether they were before publishing or after doesn't matter. Ron Paul is often associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a group that SLPC talks about having neoconfederate ties.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Even if you accept the assume that he didn't write them, there's still a raft of problems with their existence, and it's entirely fair to question his motivations and actions.
If the topic is Rand Paul, though, I can summarize:
The Republican party might emerge stronger from being forced to wrangle with some of the issues that Rand Paul is bringing into the spotlight. That may be good for them in the long run. My opinion is that he is a lightweight who won't stand up to the scrutiny that a serious presidential candidate receives. I could be wrong about that, but time will tell.
If the topic is Rand Paul, though, I can summarize:
The Republican party might emerge stronger from being forced to wrangle with some of the issues that Rand Paul is bringing into the spotlight. That may be good for them in the long run. My opinion is that he is a lightweight who won't stand up to the scrutiny that a serious presidential candidate receives. I could be wrong about that, but time will tell.
sturg33
I
Agreed - the newsletters were disturbing and he has admitted as much. But think about how many thousands of times he has been mic'd up... I'll challenge you to find a racial statement that he actually said.
Regarsding Rand - there is much I disagree with him about. But I think he's much stronger politically than you give him credit for, and I think POLITICALLY he will fare much better than pops
sturg33
I
Why? What about his political beliefs seems racist? What has he ever actually said on camera that has a hint of racism?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Well you can start with his opposition to Civil Rights Act, you can also point that he's the only person to vote against Rosa Parks getting Congressional Gold Medal.
Also some minor issues with Paul's denial is that he's changed it in the last 20 years. From he wrote thousands and you're taking it out of context to he doesn't write them all and doesn't check them all, especially the bad ones.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Really, now. His explanation of the newsletters just strains credibility. Particularly when you consider that he didn't disavow them until he ran for president.