Rand Paul calls for Trump veto of coronavirus relief, mocks GOP colleagues

Brian4Liberty

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
63,466
Rand Paul calls for Trump veto of coronavirus relief, mocks GOP colleagues for 'socialist spending'

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., continued to assail the new coronavirus relief package on Wednesday, blasting "jokers" in Washington who never agree to replace wasteful spending and calling former President Obama comparatively conservative to some of his Republican colleagues.

Paul told "Fox & Friends" he would support President Trump vetoing the newly passed $2.3 trillion package in coronavirus relief and government funding. However, he said he opposed Trump on handing out "free money" to people in the form of direct checks for $2,000, which the president called for Tuesday night.

Most working Americans didn't need the money, Paul said, although he would support extending unemployment benefits.

"President Obama is now a conservative when it comes to stimulus because his unemployment didn't juice it up. He just extended it," Paul said. "Cash payments is a ridiculous, terrible, foolish, no-good idea, because you're just printing out money to give to people ... It's going to ruin the value of our currency ultimately."
...
More: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-trump-veto-coronavirus-republicans-socialist-spending
 
I respect and agree with his principled stand, but if he votes against the $2,000 it's the end of his political career. I hate it, but he needs to vote yes or he's no good to anyone in the futre. This is not the hill to die on.
 
I respect and agree with his principled stand, but if he votes against the $2,000 it's the end of his political career. I hate it, but he needs to vote yes or he's no good to anyone in the futre. This is not the hill to die on.

It won't hurt him politically one bit. Nobody will even notice because it won't make a difference.
 
I'm also not sure I agree with the reasoning that it's preferable only to give out money to those who need it through extended unemployment benefits, rather than giving it to everyone equally including those who don't need it. The former incentivizes unemployment. The latter still is ends up as a net gain in money to the poor and a net cost to the rich, but without incentivizing unemployment. The best case would be nothing at all. But if it's between the two options Rand is considering, I'd tend to favor the one that gives out the money indiscriminately.
 
Rand has been able to influence Trump to do certain things, and that has been successful.

He will also probably stick with the Dr. No strategy, and no matter what comes from further negotiations, the vote will remain the same: “no”. I, for one, support his “no” votes.
 
Every Democrat and Republican that openly supports this coronavirus relief bill should be ridiculed to the point where they have no choice but to resign.
 
I respect and agree with his principled stand, but if he votes against the $2,000 it's the end of his political career. I hate it, but he needs to vote yes or he's no good to anyone in the futre. This is not the hill to die on.

I must disagree. Going along to get along lands Rand in the same category as the rest of the valueless scum we call "congress".

That said, none of this matters because until we pull our souls from our sphincters and start a mass campaign of absolute disobedience to all non-Law, we are screwed. And if civil disobedience doesn't get the job done, then it will fall to the choice of hot lead or getting on our backs with legs wide. It matters no whit how much one chooses to believe that violence must be avoided at any cost. When all peaceful options fail, killing becomes the means of preserving that which is one's.
 
Imagine running for president as the guy who voted against free money during the "pandemic".

You paint too broadly. What you say may be true of most of the "left", but the vast majority of those on the "right" will see it differently. There are corrupts on all sides.
 
Back
Top