Sen. Rand Paul aggressively courting evangelicals to win over GOP establishment

[TaftFan]

Oh, yes they do.

The religious right is mostly Social Gospelers (re: Marxists) that believe all of society's ills can be cured through the magical use of Government*.

*Usage of Government may lead to an unsafe rise in poverty, genocide, and loss of liberties. Please contact your fellow citizens before using Government so we can deport your ass to the Sun.

It depends on who. Most care mainly about abortion and gay marriage and Israel. Lots of very religious areas are now becoming more liberal on alcohol sales.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Oh, yes they do.

The religious right is mostly Social Gospelers (re: Marxists) that believe all of society's ills can be cured through the magical use of Government*.

*Usage of Government may lead to an unsafe rise in poverty, genocide, and loss of liberties. Please contact your fellow citizens before using Government so we can deport your ass to the Sun.

Yes, because they seek the return of him who will setup a government and rule with a rod of iron.

 

[AJ Antimony]

When you look at minorities such as blacks and Hispanics, a lot of them vote Dem even though they are socially conservative. They are low hanging fruit. I think Rand is targeting them and everyone around them. It's a large ever-growing niche of voters that shockingly no other Republican is grabbing up. I think Rand is banking on his dad's supporters tagging along with just a little wink and a nod (and we will). I see the strategy and it's a smart one imo.

Wink and a nod? The thing about Ron Paul Republicans and Tea Partiers is that the #1 thing they look for in candidates is their voting records. I personally believe that Rand can say anything he wants, and as long as he maintains his outsider/Tea Party/libertarian voting record, he will easily get those voters.

 

[James Madison]

It depends on who. Most care mainly about abortion and gay marriage and Israel. Lots of very religious areas are now becoming more liberal on alcohol sales.

They were the biggest proponents of Prohibition back in the days of Woodrow Wilson, so it only took them 100 years to come around.

Yes, because they seek the return of him who will setup a government and rule with a rod of iron.

They make the same mistake the Israelites made 2000 years ago. They wish for Salvation to come to man when it has always been there, for all to see, yet many have been deceived and close their eyes and ears to the truth. I expect many of us will share the same fate as the first Disciples, but if you have to die, that doesn't sound so bad after all.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Prosecuting a "war on drugs" is done via the DoJ at the president and AG's discretion.

Taking a position on a Federal statute that may empower the president or his successor to prosecute such a "war" is not the same as actually using those powers to bring prosecutions or allocate Federal resources during his term in office.

For example: There are still obscenity laws on the books but Obama recently closed the Obscenity division within the DoJ and is not bringing such prosecutions. He has folded what's left into the child crime division or something. He never campaigned on that or promised to do that. He just did it using his own discretion. He has made no effort to repeal the obscenity laws through Congress.

Rand could do the same with the drug section if he so wanted to.

Rand could actually do more than that as President. He could simply direct his Attorney General to remove drugs from the Controlled Substances Act, which would legalize them at the Federal level, and leave it up to the states to legalize, decriminalize, and/or regulate however they see fit. (It's a common misconception that the President doesn't have the power to end the Federal war on drugs any time he wants. He DOES actually have that power, and not just by stopping enforcement of the law.)

The Controlled Substances Act is somewhat unusual as Federal laws go, in that it does not require the action of Congress to change it, because of the way it's written. Section 811 of the CSA gives the Attorney General the power to make any changes he wants to the schedules of controlled substances. I think the intention was to make it easy to add new drugs to the CSA as they are invented or discovered. But it could equally be used to remove substances from its control. Again, with no action needed from Congress. The Executive branch has the power to actually legislate in the Federal war on drugs!! They do have to follow some procedures in order to do so, but that's a formality that wouldn't stop any President or AG from doing whatever they want with this.

You can read more about it here: http://www.theweedblog.com/attorney-general-holder-admits-obama-misled-on-medical-marijuana/

(There is a link within the article that takes you to the actual Section 811 of the CSA on the DEA/DOJ website as well, for those interested to read the whole section.)

 

[compromise]

By the way, I support Rand. I'm just saying I don't agree with his position on this issue.

Then why are you making such a big fuss about it? You did this with Rand's position on foreign intervention too by totally misrepresenting his position.

 

[Brett85]

Then why are you making such a big fuss about it? You did this with Rand's position on foreign intervention too by totally misrepresenting his position.

How am I misrepresenting his position on these issues? I'm simply going by his own words.

1) Rand: "I'm opposed to legalizing drugs, even marijuana." (This article and Hannity's radio show.)
2) Rand: "All options should be on the table to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons."

These are Rand's own words. I've never misrepresented anything. I'm just not a shill who will constantly defend him no matter what he says.

 

[Brett85]

Apparently he's still going with the "thousands of exceptions to an abortion ban as well."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348096/rand-paul-iowa/page/0/1

"He says he’s “100 percent” pro-life, but maintains there are many exceptions to the rule that abortion is wrong."

 

[LibertyEagle]

Apparently he's still going with the "thousands of exceptions to an abortion ban as well."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348096/rand-paul-iowa/page/0/1

"He says he’s “100 percent” pro-life, but maintains there are many exceptions to the rule that abortion is wrong."

Ron had exceptions too on abortion, but made a claim very similar. Yet, I doubt many would claim that Ron wasn't extremely pro-life.

And with regard to drugs, handing the decision down to the states to make and enforce is far different than saying you want to "legalize drugs".

 

[Brett85]

And with regard to drugs, handing the decision down to the states to make and enforce is far different than saying you want to "legalize drugs".

Right, but I've never heard him say that it should be strictly a state issue. He's only been talking about reducing federal penalties, not repealing the federal ban on marijuana or anything like that.

 

[supermario21]

Evangelicals are only social authoritarians because nobody has made a significant outreach effort to show them that you can be pro-liberty and pro-Evangelical.

 

[Warlord]

Rand could actually do more than that as President. He could simply direct his Attorney General to remove drugs from the Controlled Substances Act, which would legalize them at the Federal level, and leave it up to the states to legalize, decriminalize, and/or regulate however they see fit. (It's a common misconception that the President doesn't have the power to end the Federal war on drugs any time he wants. He DOES actually have that power, and not just by stopping enforcement of the law.)

The Controlled Substances Act is somewhat unusual as Federal laws go, in that it does not require the action of Congress to change it, because of the way it's written. Section 811 of the CSA gives the Attorney General the power to make any changes he wants to the schedules of controlled substances. I think the intention was to make it easy to add new drugs to the CSA as they are invented or discovered. But it could equally be used to remove substances from its control. Again, with no action needed from Congress. The Executive branch has the power to actually legislate in the Federal war on drugs!! They do have to follow some procedures in order to do so, but that's a formality that wouldn't stop any President or AG from doing whatever they want with this.

You can read more about it here: http://www.theweedblog.com/attorney-general-holder-admits-obama-misled-on-medical-marijuana/

(There is a link within the article that takes you to the actual Section 811 of the CSA on the DEA/DOJ website as well, for those interested to read the whole section.)

That is unusual Dave I thought it would take Congress to vote on that but I think changing it would be politically toxic and too noticeable by the dumbed down masses and statist media. It's much preferable to do what Obama did with obscenity and just tell the AG to stop prosecuting them.

This is why a mass pardon of Federal drug prisoners is also difficult to pull off because it would get noticed and cause some controversy.

 

[Warlord]

Apparently he's still going with the "thousands of exceptions to an abortion ban as well."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348096/rand-paul-iowa/page/0/1

"He says he’s “100 percent” pro-life, but maintains there are many exceptions to the rule that abortion is wrong."

The reporter is just taking what the AP wrote in a previous report from the CNN interview. He means many medical exceptions.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Right, but I've never heard him say that it should be strictly a state issue. He's only been talking about reducing federal penalties, not repealing the federal ban on marijuana or anything like that.

BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T SAY IT LIKE THAT!!!! Why is it so hard for you to understand? Damn.

 

[Warlord]

Right, but I've never heard him say that it should be strictly a state issue. He's only been talking about reducing federal penalties, not repealing the federal ban on marijuana or anything like that.

Again you want him to use exact words and terms you want to hear but he doesn't. He says it in a different way. Big deal. He's on record supporting the 10th and clearly isn't interested in prosecuting a war on drugs against CO, CA and WA and if Obama does Rand might find a winning issue as far as the drug debate goes via-a-vis defending the 10th amendment and railing against Federal abuse.

It could play very well in those states...

When he's in California Rand should remind people there that he is against Obama's medical marijuana dispensary raids. If he keeps repeating it and being critical of Obama's actions he could do the unthinkable and compete there though I don't expect him to but the position will work for him in OR which I can see being competitive after 8 years of failed liberalism

 

[Brett85]

BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T SAY IT LIKE THAT!!!! Why is it so hard for you to understand? Damn.

Why not? Why would it be so hard to convince social conservatives that repealing the federal ban on marijuana is simply about restoring the 10th amendment? It has nothing to do with drug legalization. Drug legalization should be a state issue.

 

[Brett85]

Shoot, I made this argument when I gave a speech for Ron in my GOP caucus in 2012. I made the case that Ron's position is simply that the federal government should be mostly out of drug enforcement and each individual state should decide whether marijuana and other drugs are legal or illegal. I live in a heavily socially conservative area, and not a single person disagreed with what I said. A bunch of people said I did a great job with my speech and agreed that the states should deal with the drug issue. This isn't a controversial position to take at all, even in a Republican Primary.

 

[supermario21]

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/rand-paul-assures-evangelicals-that-he-d

Mike Riggs has come out with a pretty hard hitting piece at the beltway site Reason...You have to talk to these people if you ever want to sway them in the future. Reason just assumes you can win an election blowing off the largest portion of GOP primary voters. My opinion is that if Rand engages with these people, then you'll see some pro-legalization guys like Pat Robertson get involved, support Rand, and convert some of the evangelicals.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Shoot, I made this argument when I gave a speech for Ron in my GOP caucus in 2012. I made the case that Ron's position is simply that the federal government should be mostly out of drug enforcement and each individual state should decide whether marijuana and other drugs are legal or illegal. I live in a heavily socially conservative area, and not a single person disagreed with what I said. A bunch of people said I did a great job with my speech and agreed that the states should deal with the drug issue. This isn't a controversial position to take at all, even in a Republican Primary.

I agree. The constitutional position is not controversial for even standard conservatives. Once again, I just firmly believe that Rand really does agree with the war on drugs, which is very sad.

 

[supermario21]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/rand-paul-marijuana_n_2165735.html

I'm pretty sure he hasn't changed his position from that November ABC interview. His position has been to relax or eliminate penalties, and let states handle drug policy. There's nothing wrong with that. In order to have a War On Drugs someone needs to give orders to federal agents to conduct those raids. You really think Rand is going to do that? Legalizing drugs is a hard argument to make with many people. Making them think about reforming the penalties makes more progress.