Rand Paul's Latest Email

[eduardo89]

For Rand Paul, yes. Both sides of congress will be against him if he has even half his dad's principles going in.

Obviously for a statist who wants to make the government bigger and bigger, this is not the case.

You do realise that just because Congress authorises spending doesn't mean the President is forced to spend it, right? And you do realise the President has control of the Department of Justice, therefore he ultimately decides whether any violation of federal law is prosecuted or not?

 

[Christian Liberty]

You do realise that just because Congress authorises spending doesn't mean the President is forced to spend it, right?

That's a valid point.

And you do realise the President has control of the Department of Justice, therefore he ultimately decides whether any violation of federal law is prosecuted or not?

Which goes back to the "power of the pardon". Considering his comments on Snowden, Rand seems to be taking more of a "law and order" type approach.

 

[eduardo89]

Which goes back to the "power of the pardon". Considering his comments on Snowden, Rand seems to be taking more of a "law and order" type approach.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the power to pardon. The Department of Justice decides what cases to prosecute, regardless of whether the person receives a presidential pardon or not.

 

[Brett85]

Would you still be OK with the following (changes in bold)? If not, why the inconsistency.

Rand is opposing foreign aid "For countries that try to frustrate American foreign policy". I get the "hating us" meme, but Rand's subtle defense of our foreign policy is insane.

I don't think that you can throw Presidents in prison for enacting policies that you disagree with. If the President does something that violates the Constitution, you can impeach him. But I think that every President we've ever had has probably violated the Constitution at least once, which means that they all could've been impeached. Either way, I don't see why you would expect Rand to ever use the kind of rhetoric that you use. You have to be more realistic than that.

 

[Brett85]

Its true. Hence why I prefer Ron, and always have. I hope Rand is just playing the game, but how would I know?

Admittedly, I do genuinely wonder how Rand's views would change behind closed doors in the presence of other libertarians. I wonder if he'd still argue for the same positions he's arguing for now or not.

In a room full of libertarians, I don't think that even all of the libertarians would be opposed to using military action as a defensive action after our country has been attacked.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think that you can throw Presidents in prison for enacting policies that you disagree with.

Of course not. My principles are more logical than that. My point is that Bush and Obama have both murdered far more people than Bin Laden ever did. Bin Laden is a saint compared to them.

And no, of course I don't expect Rand to actually say that. I just wish Rand would shut up about this kind of stuff, because it makes him look stupid to anyone who actually thinks things through (Which admittedly, isn't many people.)

And regarding the "prison" bit, I do support the death penalty for murder...

If the President does something that violates the Constitution, you can impeach him. But I think that every President we've ever had has probably violated the Constitution at least once, which means that they all could've been impeached.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Either way, I don't see why you would expect Rand to ever use the kind of rhetoric that you use. You have to be more realistic than that.

I don't. I just find people's continual refusal to apply logical principles to be frustrating. Doubly so from Christians, who kind of have "God is not a respecter of persons" and "kings are supposed to be subject to God's Law" in their own Bibles. I of course don't expect Rand to say the kinds of things he "should" say. But the email was basically getting mad at other countries for "not supporting American foreign policy." That same criticism could rightly be flung at the liberty movement. Ron Paul would never say something that blatantly stupid.

 

[Christian Liberty]

In a room full of libertarians, I don't think that even all of the libertarians would be opposed to using military action as a defensive action after our country has been attacked.

I don't think anyone would oppose that. I just don't think you understand the position that I'm actually taking. Ask yourself what the difference between the war in Afghanistan and the War of 1812.

 

[Brett85]

I don't. I just find people's continual refusal to apply logical principles to be frustrating. Doubly so from Christians, who kind of have "God is not a respecter of persons" and "kings are supposed to be subject to God's Law" in their own Bibles. I of course don't expect Rand to say the kinds of things he "should" say. But the email was basically getting mad at other countries for "not supporting American foreign policy." That same criticism could rightly be flung at the liberty movement. Ron Paul would never say something that blatantly stupid.

He wasn't criticizing them for not supporting U.S foreign policy in general. He was just talking about one particular incident and one small aspect of American foreign policy.

And there is a huge difference between preemptive war and responding to an attack on our soil by using our military to kill the person responsible. Do you really not see any difference between supporting a preemptive war against a country like Iran that has never attacked us, and using military action against a man who was responsible for the worst terrorist attack in American history?

 

[bunklocoempire]

Anything Rand Paul does as president will be associated with libertarianism.

Think about that - about his pandering, his race to appear moderate, his abandonment of libertarianism.

Then think about what else could go wrong during a potential presidency. Bond collapse? Another economic calamity? Terrorist attack? Scandal involving a cabinet member or executive branch head?

Do you really want any of those things being associated with libertarianism? Even one of those things happening is a massive setback for the libertarian movement, not a step forward.

To note, I didn't even get into the fact that Congress wouldn't pass a single bill that would advance libertarian legislative agendas in any meaningful sense. In short, there is massive risk to having Rand Paul in the White House at this time, in his current form and political climate, and there is very little possible reward.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” ― Ron Paul

We already know what the playing field was like, is like, and will be like.

The truth goat has already been scaped every which way from Sunday.

If truth is the goal there isn't anything to lose in attempting to toss just a little more truth into the spotlight. Ever.

Upping the ante is how you make your opponent bust or show their hand. The tricky part is to make it to the round/venue where the most truth might be heard. Or at the very least the hands or true intentions of the opponents are clear.

Ron did an excellent job at filling that truth pot more than a few times and his opponents certainly tipped their hands. Ron busted out a few times but for truth's sake not playing would've been way worse.

When and if Rand isn't willing to put as much truth out there as his opponents -while he is still playing this game- then I would have some major questions. I am confident that Rand will have more truth showing than any other "electable" candidate out there. I am confident that as Rand does this more and more hands will continue to be tipped.

Yeah, my poker talk is free and easy -not precise. Have some mercy. lol Hope you get my meaning any way.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So why address it? Why try to get Americans fired up to get more involved with Pakistan's internal affairs? How is this helping anything?

I do not know. But people usually have good reasons for why they do things, even if they may not be immediately apparent to an observer. I am not a master of the field that Rand is in. So I do not presume to know why he does what he does nor what the consequences will be.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He wasn't criticizing them for not supporting U.S foreign policy in general. He was just talking about one particular incident and one small aspect of American foreign policy.

And there is a huge difference between preemptive war and responding to an attack on our soil by using our military to kill the person responsible. Do you really not see any difference between supporting a preemptive war against a country like Iran that has never attacked us, and using military action against a man who was responsible for the worst terrorist attack in American history?

Of course I do. The problem is without a trial you don't actually know for sure that the guy was guilty either. I also believe it made the blowback problem worse.

But yes, I obviously see a difference.

I do not know. But people usually have good reasons for why they do things, even if they may not be immediately apparent to an observer. I am not a master of the field that Rand is in. So I do not presume to know why he does what he does nor what the consequences will be.

I think there's this presumption that Rand secretly agrees with his dad on everything that is wrong. I think Rand actually is much more moderate, and is not just pretending to be. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[libertywanter]

So why address it? Why try to get Americans fired up to get more involved with Pakistan's internal affairs? How is this helping anything?



For Rand Paul, yes. Both sides of congress will be against him if he has even half his dad's principles going in.

Obviously for a statist who wants to make the government bigger and bigger, this is not the case.

@thill- I'll probably gamble: once. Why not? I don't see any hope so I'll try anything, once. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize Rand when his rhetoric is hawkish.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. Rand is not a full fledged libertarian even though he has a lot of libertarian principles. The fact that he is not an over the top libertarian will allow him to get things done and start swaying this country in the right direction. If you could even get a full libertarian candidate elected at this point in time which you certainly cannot, the full libertarian would be unable to get things done. As I said earlier and as someone else said, things have to get done gradually because things do not happen at once. The best way to get a fox into the chicken coop is to make it look more like a chicken than a fox, if that makes any sense. Rand has demonstrated many times his ability to find middle ground with all sides and that is a very good thing.