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

[Brett85]

Then is his position basically as WarLord said and he simply wants to allow the states to nullify the federal drug laws? Because he hasn't introduced or advocated a bill to repeal the federal ban on marijuana, and on Hannity's radio show he said that he doesn't support changing any of our current laws regarding legalization, but simply wants to reduce penalties.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Exactly. Where is Rand on this? If Rand's argument is that Republicans can do a better job at handling the empire than Democrats, I am out. Count me out of everything.

When the average person or republican thinks about foreign policy they don't think of it in terms of how many people we're murdering overseas like you and I do. Rand isn't speaking to us and that's why we don't need to find solace in every word he speaks. In order for this empire to ever be reigned in, stopped and reversed is for him to be able to attract more people to our side by using less inflammatory lingo and perhaps they even learn a thing or two as time goes by. Then, once he wins the nomination he'll adjust his rhetoric for the general and if he can win, I expect he'll make us very happy during his administration. Some people aren't cut out for politics or refuse to play the game in order to push principle. Unfortunately, life and our govt is affected by politics so if you shut yourself out, you're one less activist, donor, vote in stopping federal overreach which then allows that govt to keep doing the usual overseas.

 

[tsai3904]

Then is his position basically as WarLord said and he simply wants to allow the states to nullify the federal drug laws? Because he hasn't introduced or advocated a bill to repeal the federal ban on marijuana, and on Hannity's radio show he said that he doesn't support changing any of our current laws regarding legalization, but simply wants to reduce penalties.

Reporter: Colorado wants to legalize pot. Washington state wants to legalize pot. They should be allowed to?

Rand: States should be allowed to. I'm not promoting it but states should be allowed to make a lot of these decisions.

I think Rand doesn't want to make this a big issue and wants the states to take the lead on this. He's not going to advocate states to legalize marijuana but if they do, he respects it and agrees that the federal govt should not interfere.

 

[Brett85]

I think Rand doesn't want to make this a big issue and wants the states to take the lead on this. He's not going to advocate states to legalize marijuana but if they do, he respects it and agrees that the federal govt should not interfere.

Then why not just say that every time he's asked about it? When some social conservative in Iowa asks him a question about it, why not just say, "I'm personally opposed to drug use but believe that it's an issue that should be left up to the states to decide." We wouldn't be having this conversation right now if he would simply say that and make the states' rights argument consistently.

 

[cajuncocoa]

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.

 

[tsai3904]

Then why not just say that every time he's asked about it? When some social conservative in Iowa asks him a question about it, why not just say, "I'm personally opposed to drug use but believe that it's an issue that should be left up to the states to decide." We wouldn't be having this conversation right now if he would simply say that and make the states' rights argument consistently.

Like I said, in the article you posted, he may have said it should be handled at the state level for all we know. There's no video of the full question and answer.

I would like him to be more consistent but the fact is, Rand has said "States should be allowed to [legalize marijuana]". Again, you can be against legalizing marijuana but FOR states to decide the issue. It's like marriage. Rand is for marriage between one man and one woman but is FOR states to decide the issue. It's not that complicated.

 

[Brett85]

Like I said, in the article you posted, he may had said it should be handled at the state level for all we know. There's no video of the full question and answer.

I would like him to be more consistent but the fact is, Rand has said "States should be allowed to [legalize marijuana]". Again, you can be against legalizing marijuana but FOR states to decide the issue. It's like marriage. Rand is for marriage between one man and one woman but is FOR states to decide the issue. It's not that complicated.

But then in the Hannity interview that cajun just posted, it sounds like he says the exact opposite. He makes it sound like he supports a federal ban on marijuana but simply wants lighter federal penalties for marijuana use. These are his exact words, not simply a quote in an article.

 

[cajuncocoa]

But then in the Hannity interview that cajun just posted, it sounds like he says the exact opposite. He makes it sound like he supports a federal ban on marijuana but simply wants lighter federal penalties for marijuana use. These are his exact words, not simply a quote in an article.

That's exactly what he said.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

But then in the Hannity interview that cajun just posted, it sounds like he says the exact opposite. He makes it sound like he supports a federal ban on marijuana but simply wants lighter federal penalties for marijuana use. These are his exact words, not simply a quote in an article.

Right but that's all Hannity and his audience needs to know about his drug war stances. In that interview, Hannity was trying to nail him on legalization and that is what right wing hosts will try to do as we go forward, which is why Rand is presenting this nuanced position that is apparently too complex for some to visualize around here.

 

[tsai3904]

But then in the Hannity interview that cajun just posted, it sounds like he says the exact opposite. He makes it sound like he supports a federal ban on marijuana but simply wants lighter federal penalties for marijuana use. These are his exact words, not simply a quote in an article.

He may not want to legalize it at the federal level but if a state chose to legalize it, the federal government wouldn't interfere.

 

[Brett85]

He may not want to legalize it at the federal level but if a state chose to legalize it, the federal government wouldn't interfere.

Having a federal ban on marijuana leaves the door open to federal raids in the future. Even if Rand instructed the Justice Department to end the federal raids, you could still have a future President who would do the opposite and enforce the federal marijuana laws. It's very necessary to push for the repeal of the federal ban on marijuana, not simply rely on the states to nullify it and fight off the feds.

 

[tsai3904]

Do any federal laws need to be changed before Washington and Colorado start allowing people to buy pot?

 

[tsai3904]

Having a federal ban on marijuana leaves the door open to federal raids in the future. Even if Rand instructed the Justice Department to end the federal raids, you could still have a future President who would do the opposite and enforce the federal marijuana laws. It's very necessary to push for the repeal of the federal ban on marijuana, not simply rely on the states to nullify it and fight off the feds.

I completely agree with you. However, can you see how Rand's position makes sense? If Rand were President, he wouldn't go around advocating the legalization of marijuana but if a state were to legalize it, he wouldn't interfere.

 

[Brett85]

Right but that's all Hannity and his audience needs to know about his drug war stances. In that interview, Hannity was trying to nail him on legalization and that is what right wing hosts will try to do as we go forward, which is why Rand is presenting this nuanced position that is apparently too complex for some to visualize around here.

It's complex because it's incoherent. No one knows what his actual position is, because he'll give a different answer to the question each time depending on who the audience is.

 

[Brett85]

I completely agree with you. However, can you see how Rand's position makes sense? If Rand were President, he wouldn't go around advocating the legalization of marijuana but if a state were to legalize it, he wouldn't interfere.

He should advocate repealing the federal ban on marijuana. That's not "legalization," that's simply enforcing the 10th amendment. It makes no sense to have laws if they're not going to be enforced.

 

[tsai3904]

He should advocate repealing the federal ban on marijuana. That's not "legalization," that's simply enforcing the 10th amendment. It makes no sense to have laws if they're not going to be enforced.

Yes he SHOULD but that's not the point. You say that his position is incoherent. Is it incoherent to not want to legalize marijuana but if a state decided to, the federal government shouldn't interfere?

 

[Brett85]

Yes he SHOULD but that's not the point. You say that his position is incoherent. Is it incoherent to not want to legalize marijuana but if a state decided to, the federal government shouldn't interfere?

No, but in the interview with Hannity he seemed to be saying that he didn't want to change any of the federal laws regarding legalization, but simply wants to reduce federal penalties. It didn't sound like he was taking a states' rights position in that interview. His rhetoric sounded a lot different than the interview with ABC back in November.

 

[asurfaholic]

Exactly. Where is Rand on this? If Rand's argument is that Republicans can do a better job at handling the empire than Democrats, I am out. Count me out of everything.

I don't think that is rands position, at all. You seem to want to drag this entire movement down... You should get a hobby.

 

[tsai3904]

No, but in the interview with Hannity he seemed to be saying that he didn't want to change any of the federal laws regarding legalization, but simply wants to reduce federal penalties. It didn't sound like he was taking a states' rights position in that interview. His rhetoric sounded a lot different than the interview with ABC back in November.

This is where Rand is trying to pander to a certain audience and doesn't fully explain his views. However, just because he never talks about states' rights doesn't mean his position has changed.

You can not want to change any federal laws on marijuana (which Rand said in the Hannity interview) but still respect a states decision to do so (which he didn't say in the interview but has made it clear that he believes this in other interviews). There would be a conflict but Rand would side with the states.

 

[Brett85]

According to every poll I heard about, voters said economy was their big issue. Unless you're talking about black man vs rich white robotic business man being a deciding issue then I'll concede that point. If you're talking about rigged voting and corruption in the RNC, I'll also concede that point.

All things being equal I think economy is the #1 issue with the American people. This bodes well for us. Rand can court the all important minority vote with their immigration values without sacrificing the mainstream old white conservative vote.

That may be true nationally, but marijuana will be a big issue in Colorado by 2016. Rand's position on this issue may cause him to lose Colorado in the general election, as specially blend has pointed out numerous times.