Rand Paul says he would tie Gay Rights to human aid NGO funding

[Millennial Conservatarian]

There was a time when I thought it was worthwhile for Rand to pander to the Evangelicals... But its becoming pretty obvious to me that most of the Evangelicals who would consider voting for Rand are already in his camp, and most of those who aren't will never be because they're either such incredible religious theocrats or they have some delusional End Times Israel fantasy and frankly Rand is never going to get through to these people. He'd be better off by focusing on shoring up the base he has, going for some of the secular/moderate conservatives who are in Walker's camp, and going for some of the younger non-activist/moderately-informed people who liked his father but based upon what they've heard think Rand's just another Republican

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

He has been in Washington too long if he thinks this is what is important to Republican primary voters.

I know the goal is to cut aid but there has to be a better way.

What's important to Republican primary voters and what's important to the country as a whole are quite often at odds.

Rand can show solidarity/good will towards the community without necessarily endorsing its agenda. It won't win over everyone. But the most important part of it politically isn't necessarily getting the gay vote, it's getting the votes of the majority of Americans who support gay marriage. To get many of their votes all he has to do is come off "not crazy".

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

There is a segment of the GOP that legit believes the USA is being punished for tolerating sodomites. Dunno how big they are, but they about won Iowa last time.

And this is why it's pointless for Rand to even try with these people.

"Live and Let Live" is not acceptable to a group of people who actually believe they're carrying out God's will.

It's the minority of America and frankly even the minority of Evangelicals (I hope) who think like this, but the idea that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality is not exactly a fringe belief among Republican evangelicals. A quick visit to the comments section on almost any right-wing outlet will confirm this for you

 

[jmdrake]

There is a segment of the GOP that legit believes the USA is being punished for tolerating sodomites. Dunno how big they are, but they about won Iowa last time.

These people are schizophrenic. I've literally heard one of these idiots one day argue that God is punishing America for accepting homosexuality then the next day say we should stand up against the "islamofacists" because they suppress gays. Some would lick this up. I wonder though what they would think when it dawned on this that this would also apply to certain African countries run by evangelical Christians who have also recently criminalized homosexuality?

 

[jmdrake]

Ok, Randal how about we cut off countries that guarantee govt subsidized abortions such as a little unnamed country in the middle east?

Rand has to set the precedent about cutting off funding for somebody first. Otherwise he will be attacked for "singling out Israel." Even some people on this forum get nervous whenever anyone is the least bit critical of Israel.

 

[specsaregood]

Rand has to set the precedent about cutting off funding for somebody first. Otherwise he will be attacked for "singling out Israel." Even some people on this forum get nervous whenever anyone is the least bit critical of Israel.

And he just did. Which was setup nicely with his attack on Hillary Clinton in regards to women's rights in the ME just the other day. I'd expect him to say something similar about cutting off funding for countries that stone women for getting raped next. Then perhaps we can tackle the abortion issue.

 

[brandon]

Randal is an enigma to me. I never know what he's going to do next. Making positive statements about gay rights is a +1 in my book.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Exactly. Rand is going down the wrong road with this argument. Ron had the better argument, and it didn't depend on "gay rights" (what is "gay rights"?)...

Yeah. To clarify, my issue here isn't really that I don't take the libertarian position on homosexuality. Its more that I have a problem with the liberal side of the libertarian position on homosexuality. That's not the road the liberty movement should be going down. I'm not sure this will even help him in a GOP primary.

 

[Smitty]

Rand's advisors are scuttling his candidacy. I mentioned the possibility once before and apparently, I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/

excerpt:

No, I’m not saying Sen. Paul has no real convictions: my guess is that he is relying on advisors and "handlers" and getting some pretty bad advice.

 

[Christian Liberty]

These people are schizophrenic. I've literally heard one of these idiots one day argue that God is punishing America for accepting homosexuality then the next day say we should stand up against the "islamofacists" because they suppress gays. Some would lick this up. I wonder though what they would think when it dawned on this that this would also apply to certain African countries run by evangelical Christians who have also recently criminalized homosexuality?

They want to be a litte bit intolerant, but if you dare be any more intolerant than that, war

 

[Keith and stuff]

From the quote, it doesn't look like he said anything about gay rights at all. Gay rights aren't mentioned in the quote. I don't understand what the title has to do with the quote.

 

[mit26chell]

From the quote, it doesn't look like he said anything about gay rights at all. Gay rights aren't mentioned in the quote. I don't understand what the title has to do with the quote.

“I would think we’d give to a lot of countries that don’t have good records on gay rights,” Paul told me. “I mean, any Muslim country probably has an abysmal record. Obviously, I’m not a big fan of most aid to begin with, so would I tie aid to behavior? Absolutely. For example, I introduced an amendment in the foreign relations committee to not give aid to countries that will put people to death for changing your religion in interfaith marriage. I’d be happy to say, for countries that punish you for homosexuality, too. Do any of them put people to death for that in Muslim countries? I’d be happy to say no.”

 

[jmdrake]

And he just did. Which was setup nicely with his attack on Hillary Clinton in regards to women's rights in the ME just the other day. I'd expect him to say something similar about cutting off funding for countries that stone women for getting raped next. Then perhaps we can tackle the abortion issue.

I think you are one to something.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to specsaregood again.

This could be a cool "candid camera" moment. Go to a tea party and/or pro life rally and at first get people agree with you that cutting off foreign aid for countries that enforce sharia law is a good thing. Then bring up the abortion issue. I bet most people there won't even know about this. Go through a list of countries where governments pay for abortion....with Israel last on the list.

 

[jmdrake]

They want to be a litte bit intolerant, but if you dare be any more intolerant than that, war

LOL

 

[jmdrake]

From the quote, it doesn't look like he said anything about gay rights at all. Gay rights aren't mentioned in the quote. I don't understand what the title has to do with the quote.

“I would think we’d give to a lot of countries that don’t have good records on gay rights,” Paul told me. “I mean, any Muslim country probably has an abysmal record. Obviously, I’m not a big fan of most aid to begin with, so would I tie aid to behavior? Absolutely. For example, I introduced an amendment in the foreign relations committee to not give aid to countries that will put people to death for changing your religion in interfaith marriage. I’d be happy to say, for countries that punish you for homosexuality, too. Do any of them put people to death for that in Muslim countries? I’d be happy to say no.”

The problem here is Rand is talking about the right not to be stoned or imprisoned as opposed to marriage or the right to pick which bathroom you want to use or the right to be in the military. Most Christians don't think gays should be put in prison. There was no big rush for a new constitutional amendment when Lawrence v. Texas was overturned like there is over the possibility of same sex marriage. This could hurt Rand politically if it gets spun the wrong way. But I think it will be interpreted as "Rand doesn't like sharia law."

 

[specsaregood]

This could be a cool "candid camera" moment. Go to a tea party and/or pro life rally and at first get people agree with you that cutting off foreign aid for countries that enforce sharia law is a good thing. Then bring up the abortion issue. I bet most people there won't even know about this.

Indeed it would; I've done similar on article comments and forums in the past. The vast majority don't know. The moment I'm waiting for is for somebody to bring up against a politician such as Mike Pence who has specifically used the fungibility argument in regards to planned parenthood.

 

[Chieppa1]

This is why I hate Republicans. Rand actually has a good idea that is the moral stance, giving more liberty to more human beings, but posters have to say "it's the wrong way" because evangelist Christians don't like gays. We need our candidate to pander to the "Jews need to live in Israel because of Armageddon" crowd.

 

[Keith and stuff]

The problem here is Rand is talking about the right not to be stoned or imprisoned as opposed to marriage or the right to pick which bathroom you want to use or the right to be in the military. Most Christians don't think gays should be put in prison. There was no big rush for a new constitutional amendment when Lawrence v. Texas was overturned like there is over the possibility of same sex marriage. This could hurt Rand politically if it gets spun the wrong way. But I think it will be interpreted as "Rand doesn't like sharia law."

Yes. Thank you. I guess I could have worded my post a little better. The initial post was confusing. Your post was great. Unfortunately, I am unable to give you more rep right now.

This plus Rand boycotting SA really make him look like a super hero to evangelical Christians, well, if the truth gets out.

 

[euphemia]

1. We should not be giving money away to other countries in the first place.
2. It's not about *gay* rights. It's about human rights. In many nations women undergo genital mutilation, are denied education, are forced to marry, cannot go about in public without being covered from head to toe and without a male relative, etc. Christians are being imprisoned or killed, their churches are being destroyed.

Foreign aid is yet another massive transfer of wealth. It needs to stop.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

These people are schizophrenic. I've literally heard one of these idiots one day argue that God is punishing America for accepting homosexuality then the next day say we should stand up against the "islamofacists" because they suppress gays. Some would lick this up. I wonder though what they would think when it dawned on this that this would also apply to certain African countries run by evangelical Christians who have also recently criminalized homosexuality?

Rick Santorum actually used this argument in a diatribe against Iran during one of the debates in the 2012 campaign.