Rand Paul on Trump's Surge: 'Brief'

[hells_unicorn]

At 9:15, "I think this is a temporary sort of loss of sanity, but we're going to come back to our senses and look for somebody serious to lead the country at some point."

Blitzer at 9:25, "Do you think that the 20% that are supporting Donald Trump - Republicans according to this latest poll - have a loss of sanity?"

Rand, "No ..."

Thanks for clarifying that. So who lost their sanity is still an outstanding question, or did Rand just join McCain in characterizing supporters and those considering Trump as 'insane crazies?'

Not really, it's pretty clear that Rand was talking about the media, considering they basically manufactured Trump's numbers, though I would argue unintentionally by committing clear acts of libel against him. Granted, Trump is a lousy candidate and I am having a hard time seeing how anyone on this site would be suckered into voting for him over Rand. In the general election against someone like Hillary, that I get, but not in a primary where better choices are available.

It also sounds like Rand is calling for amnesty.

At 5:34 Blitzer asks, "You're on the record ... saying the 11 million who are already here undocumented immigrants, you said, "are never going home; don't need to be sent home; I would incorporate them into our society by giving them work visas and making them tax payers." Would you go a step further and allow those who are tax paying, law abiding ... eventually to have a pathway to US citizenship?"

Rand answered that he would secure the border, find work visas for the honest ones who are legitimately seeking the American Dream and looking to work. So government is going to define the American Dream and 'honesty' and have a review panel use those two terms as metrics to determine how to dole out amnesty to illegal border-busters? This nebulous bureaucratic talk is not going to go down well with many in the GOP grassroots.

Rand's interview responses gave me the impression that he is trying to say something controversial to get some airtime to boost his poll numbers before the debate. We'll see if his numbers go up. In the meantime, he'll need to change his shoes before walking on stage because he just shot a big hole through one of his feet.

People who get nominated use nebulous bureaucratic talk, people who don't get their 15 minutes of fame and then disappear into political obscurity. I hear a lot of people yammering about the importance of a candidate being electable, but little talk about what that actually entails. Trump is not electable...fun, but not electable. And support of mass deportation is not terribly strong among people who actually show up to vote, otherwise it would have happened more than a decade ago.

 

[jj-]

And support of mass deportation is not terribly strong among people who actually show up to vote, otherwise it would have happened more than a decade ago.

I think it's a very significant minority in the Republican Party. I think they didn't have an impact in previous elections because their vote was split for many candidates.

 

[David Sadler]

I still believe it was a bad idea to attack him but maybe he already knows that he is out of the running for VP with that slot likely going to Cruz or Carson.

Trump disqualified Carson as VP during one of his interviews with Savage saying basically that he didn't have what it will take to do the things that need to be done.

Michael Savage Interviews Donald Trump on The Savage Nation (6-19-15)

Talks about Ben Carson at 8:50 in.

If it is Cruz it just proves Trump is a fraud when it comes to immigration.

Ted Cruz is the worst offender since he proposes a 500 percent increase on H1-B's immigration ... Cruz as a choice for VP is what will sink Trump and maybe that is how we end up with Jeb Bush.

If Trump wins the primary, selecting Cruz as VP would not be good. I don't get the feeling that Trump is considering Cruz anyway -- in spite of how hard Cruz is lobbying for either that slot or a portion of Trump's support should Trump pull out.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I think it's a very significant minority in the Republican Party. I think they didn't have an impact in previous elections because their vote was split for many candidates.

Personally, I wouldn't oppose mass deportation if it became a real possibility, but I'm not married to it to the point of it making or breaking my support for a candidate. Even a significant minority of say, 35%, would not be enough to nominate a candidate without some sort of coalition with another significant minority in the GOP, say a grouping of social conservatives, free market types, and civil libertarians. Paul has the capability to build such bridges if all of the groups in question can avoid fanaticism, which usually winds up alienating one of the other groups.

In a nation with about 100 million likely voters (give or take), you're not going to get the kind of significant, over night change that Trump is selling, precisely because he doesn't not have any crossover appeal, nor would anyone that brazen. We don't need a Berserker, we need a ninja master.

 

[David Sadler]

... Trump ... doesn't not have any crossover appeal.

Time will tell. The perception of being able to create a business environment that would create jobs would go a long way to producing cross-over in the general.

 

[65fastback2+2]

im perfectly fine with the quote...those who are falling over themselves over what trump is saying, are those who vote straight ticket R.

further, when everyone starts piling on trump, you want to be in on the dog-pile.

perry just took a swipe at him...toss a jab in there.

 

[kahless]

Trump disqualified Carson as VP during one of his interviews with Savage saying basically that he didn't have what it will take to do the things that need to be done.

Michael Savage Interviews Donald Trump on The Savage Nation (6-19-15)

Talks about Ben Carson at 8:50 in.



If Trump wins the primary, selecting Cruz as VP would not be good. I don't get the feeling that Trump is considering Cruz anyway -- in spite of how hard Cruz is lobbying for either that slot or a portion of Trump's support should Trump pull out.

I was going by his early comments on Carson long prior and I had not heard that newer interview before. thx for posting. "+1 Must spread some rep around before giving ...".

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Great. Another bad quote for them to make hay from.

 

[chronicaust]

You guys talking about "The VP spot" make me laugh lol. It's like you remember nothing from 2012, ya know like how the media propped up every candidate from Cain to Huckabee so when Romney won it looked like a fair fight. Trump -is- temporary. Rand knows exactly what he's talking about and in a month he'll be right. He's smarter than you armchair politicians could ever dream of being.

 

[David Sadler]

Rand at 9:15, "I think this is a temporary sort of loss of sanity, but we're going to come back to our senses and look for somebody serious to lead the country at some point."

Blitzer at 9:25, "Do you think that the 20% that are supporting Donald Trump - Republicans according to this latest poll - have a loss of sanity?"

Rand, "No ..."

... it's pretty clear that Rand was talking about the media ... Trump is a lousy candidate and I am having a hard time seeing how anyone on this site would be suckered into voting for him over Rand ... Trump is not electable...

Many in the 20% will think Rand is talking about them.

Rand at 9:15, "I think this is a temporary sort of loss of sanity, but we're going to come back to our senses and look for somebody serious to lead the country at some point."

When Rand says, "... we're going to come back to our senses and look for somebody serious ...," is Rand is talking about Rand and the Media looking for someone serious? Because, if he isn't then he is saying the 20% are currently 'insane.'

These polls ask for a first choice and as second choice. Scenario: Rand is out of the race entirely or has no chance of winning the primary by the time your state holds it's elections. Who would be your second choice?

If Rand has a chance of winning by the time Illinois votes, I will vote for Rand. But if, in my opinion, he is out of the race and Trump has a shot -- as things stand right now, I would vote for Trump as my second choice. And I would continue to lobby for Rand to be the VP pick for whoever wins.

 

[Brett85]

Good for Rand. It's time for this pro choice, pro universal health care liberal to be exposed for the liberal that he is.

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

If Rand has a chance of winning by the time Illinois votes, I will vote for Rand. But if, in my opinion, he is out of the race and Trump has a shot -- as things stand right now, I would vote for Trump as my second choice. And I would continue to lobby for Rand to be the VP pick for whoever wins.

I wouldn't vote for Trump under any circumstance. I'm not going to take the blame for what that nut does. If he somehow does win the presidency, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets impeached.

 

[Publicani]

He was forced to attack Trump by the "debate" design. If the last cycle is any indication, most of the time will be given to those who attacked the leader.

The way he did it though is pitiful. Very easy to defend, mainly because it is not true. Media didn't provide coverage - it attacked Trump. And Trump stood behind what he said, more or less, as opposed to Rand when he faced the music.

The whole interview sucks but Wolf is not to blame.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Trump has yet to come forward with any concrete policy proposals. All he has is personality and a bit of fluff. Then there's his history of supporting Partial Birth Abortion, supporting Socialized Medicine, supporting Entitlements, and his long history of financially supporting Democrats. Oh, and he's a draft dodger.

I can't for the life of me see him doing well in these debates. All I see is utter destruction. Trump is going down.

 

[David Sadler]

Good for Rand. It's time for this pro choice, pro universal health care liberal to be exposed for the liberal that he is.

Many will interpret Rand's remarks as 'exposing,' in not too shrouded language, his characterization of the 20% of the GOP polled who are expressing some support of Trump.

At the same time, Rand expressed his desire for amnesty for at least 11 million illegals and the creation of a bureaucracy to decide which illegals meet the government defined criteria of crashing the border illegally in search of the 'American Dream' and for being 'honest.' Those who meet the criteria will receive some type of amnesty under Rand's plan.

Something was exposed alright, and it is a mystery why so many on RPF support it, especially given that every time a GOP congress and/or WH have had a chance to close the border, end universal health care and end abortion, it has chosen not to.

Trump is saying his position on abortion is essentially the same as Reagan's -- rape, incest, life of mother.

 

[staerker]

Something was exposed alright, and it is a mystery why so many on RPF support it, especially given that every time a GOP congress and/or WH have had a chance to close the border, end universal health care and end abortion, it has chosen not to.

Trump is saying his position on abortion is essentially the same as Reagan's -- rape, incest, life of mother.

Reagen is dead, and holds no power here.

 

[Brett85]

At the same time, Rand expressed his desire for amnesty for at least 11 million illegals and the creation of a bureaucracy to decide which illegals meet the government defined criteria of crashing the border illegally in search of the 'American Dream' and for being 'honest.' Those who meet the criteria will receive some type of amnesty under Rand's plan.

If that's the case, then his position is exactly the same as Trump's position. That's also what Trump has advocated.

 

[David Sadler]

I wouldn't vote for Trump under any circumstance. I'm not going to take the blame for what that nut does. If he somehow does win the presidency, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets impeached.

Impeached for what? Securing the border? Renegotiating trade deals to the benefit of the American people? Bringing our troops home from Korea? Calling for criminal charges against Hillary?

 

[Wilf]

Impeached for what? Securing the border? Renegotiating trade deals to the benefit of the American people? Bringing our troops home from Korea? Calling for criminal charges against Hillary?

Do you seriously think that Trump is going to do all that?

 

[Publicani]

Trump has yet to come forward with any concrete policy proposals. All he has is personality and a bit of fluff. Then there's his history of supporting Partial Birth Abortion, supporting Socialized Medicine, supporting Entitlements, and his long history of financially supporting Democrats. Oh, and he's a draft dodger.

I can't for the life of me see him doing well in these debates. All I see is utter destruction. Trump is going down.

"Concrete policy proposals" is a gimmick. Are we supposed to vote for the person who comes up with the best plan? Really? What is the "best" plan? The plan that the majority currently supports?

Remember "10-10-10"? Very concrete. Who cares? First of all, once people become presidents, they ignore what they said. Secondly, they couldn't have done even what they wanted because of the remnants of the Constitution. Finally, things change. So the best plans are fake, like best business proposals: first quarter we project... Second quarter we project...

The rest of your Trump's problems are not problems at all: Romney was pro-abortion and implemented Socialized Medicine, Reagan was a Democrat, Clinton was a draft dodger.