Rand votes YES that global warming is real and mankind contributes to it

Ronin Truth said:
Pandering for more votes Rand? I really doubt that your Dad would approve.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is pandering, because a GOP candidate attempting to win over environmentalists is a futile effort and he should be well aware of that. It might just be as simple as just allowing the amendment to help get enough votes to pass the bill and override a veto.
 
Ronin Truth said:
Pandering for more votes Rand? I really doubt that your Dad would approve.
Click to expand...

Find me one instance where Rand Paul has said one single thing in favor of "fighting climate change".

Oh it's the exact opposite, and he's blasted them for hurting the coal industry in his state?

It is absurd to think he's flip-flopping everything he's said and done by voting for a meaningless noise bill. Far more evidence and history that he is waiting to use his political capital against bills with actual implications.
 
TheGrinch said:
Find me one instance where Rand Paul has said one single thing in favor of "fighting climate change".

Oh it's the exact opposite, and he's blasted them for hurting the coal industry in his state?

It is absurd to think he's flip-flopping everything he's said and done by voting for a meaningless noise bill. Far more evidence and history that he is waiting to use his political capital against bills with actual implications.
Click to expand...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ibutes-to-it&p=5765155&viewfull=1#post5765155
 
But the 15 Republicans — including seven from red states as well as one likely presidential contender, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky —went further, agreeing climate change was affected by human activity.

...

But greens were split on why Paul, who’s weighing a White House bid in 2016, would take a vote that fellow conservatives could use against him.
“Being a denier isn’t politically viable anymore,” Democratic political consultant David DiMartino wrote via email, citing polls that show Iowa and New Hampshire voters aligning with climate science and Mitt Romney’s recent turn back to public acknowledgement of global warming. “Rand must be seeing the same numbers Mitt is seeing.”

Paul’s spokesman, Brian Darling, declined to comment on the vote.

As recently as last April, Paul downplayed the threat of climate change and humans’ contribution to it, and he slammed potential presidential foe Hillary Clinton in September for saying global warming is among “the most consequential” dangers to America. But Republican strategist McKenna said Paul voted yes on last week’s climate proposal “on purpose,” since agreeing that humans play some role “is a pretty cheap way to hedge your bet.”
...
Click to expand...
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3Q2iQifOP
 
TheGrinch said:
I didn't see any direct quotes from him in this thread or from him atall on the vote.

One would think that if he is pandering, we'd expect him to, I dunno, actually make a public statement about it.
Click to expand...

You have your criteria and I have mine. A vote in the Senate screams pander volumes, to me.
 
TheGrinch said:
I didn't see any direct quotes from him in this thread or from him atall on the vote.

One would think that if he is pandering, we'd expect him to, I dunno, actually make a public statement about it.
Click to expand...

I would think if this was so horrible somebody would have been eager to point out exactly which part of the actual text in the amendment they disagree with.
 
I think the amendment was fairly non offensive and conservative in tone. I don't know that I really care about the "sense of the senate" on matters or science, but whatever. Not a big deal to me.
 
brandon said:
I think the amendment was fairly non offensive and conservative in tone. I don't know that I really care about the "sense of the senate" on matters or science, but whatever. Not a big deal to me.
Click to expand...

Pretty much where I'm at on this, too. It has no teeth, and is easy to compartmentalize.

He'll probably follow this up with legislation to defund the EPA. :)

Oh, and this is an amendment to the Keystone Pipeline bill, so yeah, change that climate, humans!
 
bxm042 said:
cajuncocoa said:
He's so smart! It's a brilliant move!!
Click to expand...

He's positioning himself for a successful run in 2024.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like Rand Paul's political strategy is becoming a conspiracy theory. "I know from his votes, words, and choice of social circles it may seem like he's just another establishment shill, but read the documents! Search the internet! He's really on our side!"

William Wallace got old, now we got Robert the Bruce.

Ron Paul captured my attention because he was only one in presidential debates that talked about federal Reserve.
Ron Paul impressed me because he was the sole "NO" vote on countless pieces of unconstitutional and immoral legislation.
Ron Paul amazed me when he spoke as much truth as he could in every interview I've ever seen him in.

Demonstration of principle motivates and affects people. No one cares about the "Rand Paul platform" any more than they care about the Dem/Rep platform.

The carrot is too far away when it comes to Rand and demonstration of principle is unrecognizable to the average joe.

My prediction is that he will be cozied up to, brought to the table, supported, etc. until he is indistinguishable from all the rest. Then when election time comes the big money will work against him and his voice will be drowned out by all the other candidates who seem just like him on the MSM and he will lose by huge margin.

Anyway, not trying to start a flame war, this has all been said on here countless times in different ways.
 
Ronin Truth said:
You have your criteria and I have mine. A vote in the Senate screams pander volumes, to me.
Click to expand...

Well, considering you were responding to my criteria :D

Every time you all kneejerk about stuff like this before putting it into proper context, you end up with egg on your face. Maybe for once you should wait and see if it changes Rand's statements and actions on the subject. I'm betting that as soon as you see legislation being pushed on the matter, that Rand will once again stand against more government control and spending.
 
specsaregood said:
I would think if this was so horrible somebody would have been eager to point out exactly which part of the actual text in the amendment they disagree with.
Click to expand...

That too. It's sad that some of his father's supporters are by far the most willing to create controversy out of thin air.

There is nothing in the bill that contradicts what he's said on the matter. There is no substance to this bill, it's simply a trap to try to box opponents into unneeded controversy if they vote against it.
 
specsaregood said:
Still, can you point to the part in the text of the amendment you actually disagree with? TIA
Click to expand...

(2) human activity contributes to climate change
Click to expand...

I disagree with this.

If this is the case, and I do not think it is, then we might as well all go home now and not give ourselves the headaches and ulcers.

You let this camel get his nose in the tent and individual human liberty will be as dead as Julius Caesar inside two generations.

Nothing will be outside government control, regulation and surveillance.
 
Anti Federalist said:
I disagree with this.

If this is the case, and I do not think it is, then we might as well all go home now and not give ourselves the headaches and ulcers.

You let this camel get his nose in the tent and individual human liberty will be as dead as Julius Caesar inside two generations.

Nothing will be outside government control, regulation and surveillance.
Click to expand...

You fart, you change the climate.

Is there anything that is not currently "outside government control, regulation and surveillance"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top