[Video] Rand Paul on Meet the Press w/ Chuck Todd 4/12/15

[jct74]

update:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrgyjstkbEk


--

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a presidential candidate for 2016, will be a guest on ... NBC's "Meet the Press."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/ente...l-mitt-romney-bob-menendez-20150410-post.html

 

[jct74]

bump

 

[jct74]

bump

 

[SilentBull]

Does anyone know if he will be in the studio? He does better with those.

Update: he will be there in person.

 

[BenIsForRon]

I don't like how he danced around some of those questions, especially the Iran one. I mean, who cares what Iran says? If we are going to wait for Iran to stop thumping their chest in front of their citizens, then we're going to be waiting centuries. That's no excuse to not go forward with an agreement.

He's going to have to shit or get off the pot on some of these issues, under intense media scrutiny he is not going to be able to hold a libertarian and a neocon postion simultaneously.

 

[Brett85]

I don't like how he danced around some of those questions, especially the Iran one. I mean, who cares what Iran says? If we are going to wait for Iran to stop thumping their chest in front of their citizens, then we're going to be waiting centuries. That's no excuse to not go forward with an agreement.

He's going to have to shit or get off the pot on some of these issues, under intense media scrutiny he is not going to be able to hold a libertarian and a neocon postion simultaneously.

But there hasn't been an actual agreement yet. Nothing is in writing.

 

[philipped]

I couldn't even watch all of Face The Nation & Meet The Press because they were both on at the same time for me. Guys, spread this one out its #ThingsNomineesDo.

 

[01000110]

I think Rand did well in this interview too.

Regarding dancing around Iran... I dunno, there isn't much to go on besides what Kerry has said and the fact sheets that don't jive with what the Ayatollah has tweeted. I think any agreement with them might be ultimately doomed.

 

[acptulsa]

It wasn't live, or in the studio. It was outside. It went pretty well. He more or less ducked the question of how he differs from his father, saying it was all a matter of detail, not a matter of principle. He said that his experience as a doctor left him accustomed to people who actually wanted to hear his answer to their questions. He considers Iran, North Korea and Pakistan nations worth keeping a sharp eye on. He introduced a measure in the Senate to declare war on ISIS, but it went nowhere.

Short but pretty good.

 

[Okaloosa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrgyjstkbEk

Watch on youtube so you can subscribe to Rand Paul's new channel.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I don't like how he danced around some of those questions, especially the Iran one. I mean, who cares what Iran says? If we are going to wait for Iran to stop thumping their chest in front of their citizens, then we're going to be waiting centuries. That's no excuse to not go forward with an agreement.

He's going to have to shit or get off the pot on some of these issues, under intense media scrutiny he is not going to be able to hold a libertarian and a neocon postion simultaneously.

What Rand is doing, thread the needle style, is to hold (on substance, and in outcome) a liberty-friendly position, couched with neo-con rhetoric and (empty or temporary) gestures. He is saying things that please the war party and often displease us, in order to position himself to get to a liberty result (in office, enacting policy). Rand wants an agreement with Iran (outcome) but has to talk hawkish to separate himself from Obama (since the war party is associating supporting an agreement with being pro-Obama).

 

[Crashland]

This one too cuts off at the 10 minute mark? What are they doing?

 

[eleganz]

Team Rand anticipating media interviews and putting up a huge Rand sign in the background, thats general election stuff~

Good job, very impressed. Chuck Todd gave a pretty fair interview.

 

[Crashland]

Rand didn't like the question about his dad -- it didn't come off well that he asked Chuck Todd about his own dad to avoid or put off the question. Other than that I thought it was pretty good.

 

[acptulsa]

Rand didn't like the question about his dad -- it didn't come off well that he asked Chuck Todd about his own dad to avoid or put off the question. Other than that I thought it was pretty good.

It didn't come off that well, because Todd was right there with the valid point that both Pauls are public figures. But it didn't come off all that badly. Who likes to go on national television and criticize their dad's beliefs?

No bad thing for Rand Paul to admit to being human.

 

[CPUd]

This one too cuts off at the 10 minute mark? What are they doing?

Youtube policy on new accounts restricts videos to 10 min. In a couple weeks, maybe sooner because of views, the restriction will be lifted.

 

[Peace Piper]

Rand says:

"There was hope maybe a year or so ago that when Russia helped to broker getting rid of the chemical weapons in Syria there was hope among some of us that they were going to want to participate in making the world a better place but ...ah...quickly dashed after ...you know...the invasion of Crimea and into Ukraine"

What a bunch of absolute crap. This is disgusting, he might ruin his dad's legacy if he doesn't stop with this.

Can someone show some proof of what Rand said? When the hell did Russia "INVADE CRIMEA"?? All of the articles I've read from people that usually have a pretty good idea of what is going on- like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts-disagree with Rand. And if Rand is wrong is he just going to get a pass on BS like this? Some here wonder why some of us don't have the enthusiasm for Rand that we had for Ron. This is as glaring an example as is possible. I won't be supporting anyone that spouts this blatant hogwash. And if he's just spouting this nonsense to get elected then he's as untrustworthy as the witch Hillary. Enough with the Pauls. Quick before everyone forgets what Ron was all about.

Russia Has Western Enemies, Not Partners — Paul Craig Roberts

When Putin blocked the planned US invasions of Syria and Iran, Washington decided that something had to be done about Putin and Russia. Washington had spent $5 billion dollars buying Ukrainian politicians and funding fifth column NGOs. With Putin distracted with the Olympics, Washington struck, overthrew the elected Ukrainian government and installed its puppets.

The puppets set about antagonizing Ukraine’s Russian population in provinces that formerly were part of Russia but were attached to Ukraine by Soviet leaders when Russia and Ukraine were the same country. Russians threatened with death and the banning of their language naturally did not want to be victims of Washington’s puppet government in Kiev. Crimea voted to reunite with Russia from whence it came, and so did the eastern and southern provinces.

Washington and its the vassals and presstitutes lied and described these acts of self-determination as Russian invasion and annexation. Russia is falsely accused of having troops occupying the breakaway provinces.

The purpose of Washington’s false accusations is to destabilize Russia and the country’s government...
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/05/russia-western-enemies-partners-paul-craig-roberts/​

 

[BenIsForRon]

When Crimea held the vote to be annexed by Russia, there were tons of Russian troops, and pro-Russian militia, with guns on every street corner. Hardly a fair and honest referendum at that point. Anybody that wanted to stay with Ukraine was scared to go out in public.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Good interview.

I don't care if they be a hater or a paid shill, in their gut they respect his thoughtfulness and his command of the issues. That is very, very rare in today's politics.

He's not going to get a 100 on every interview, but if he can counter the "He's a shithead to women!" interviews with one like this he will be in good shape.

His wife gave him good advice

 

[65fastback2+2]

I don't like how he danced around some of those questions, especially the Iran one. I mean, who cares what Iran says? If we are going to wait for Iran to stop thumping their chest in front of their citizens, then we're going to be waiting centuries. That's no excuse to not go forward with an agreement.

He's going to have to shit or get off the pot on some of these issues, under intense media scrutiny he is not going to be able to hold a libertarian and a neocon postion simultaneously.

Who cares what Iran says?

If we say "this agreement means no nukes" and Iran says "the agreement allows nukes!" then youd better listen. "Perception is reality" is a cliche, but its spot on. If Iran says thats what the agreement says to them, thats how they're going to treat it which is going to lead to more problems.