[Video] Rand Paul on The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart 10/03/12

[Ben Bernanke]

I would, your call. Comedy Central doesn't mess around..

I'm about 15 minutes into the shot, have to admit the Tucker Carlson bit was hilarious

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I don't know, the clip of Gary Johnson on the Daily Show is still online and has over 8000 views. But yeah, Comedy Central is very hawkish when it comes to copyright "violations" on Youtube. Maybe I should leave it unlisted?

One trick you can do is flipping the image.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

One trick you can do is flipping the image.

I'll try that, right now it's cutting it down to just the Rand interview. I'm going to leave it as unlisted so only people on here can watch it. Also will try and flip the image.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Well that was pretty lame. I hope the online portion is more interesting.

And I hope Rand's book isn't just a group of stories of individuals getting boned by regulations, I hope it attacks the structure of the system more directly.

 

[Rudeman]

The full video is up on the dailyshow website:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-october-3-2012-rand-paul

If you saw the tv version and just want to watch the online segment of the Rand interview it starts at 20:52. If you didn't see any of it and just want to watch the Rand interview it starts at around 16:10 or so.

 

[BenIsForRon]

The online portion was just as lame.

Very disappointed in Rand here. Jon Stewart was trying to get Rand to talk about whether Rand's simplified rhetoric in his other public appearances was matching the more nuanced viewpoint Rand was expressing on the show, but Rand just kept firing away at the examples.

For example, Rand says regulations are killing jobs, so we need to get rid of them. However, when discussing the clean air act, he really just has a problem with how it's being implemented in some cases, not the act as a whole. When he says the pendulum needs to swing the other way, he doesn't describe how he wants that to happen. Is he going to try to abolish the clean air act, or does he want to overhaul it, and how would he want to overhaul it. He answered none of that, even though that's clearly where Jon Stewart was trying to go.

Maybe Rand hasn't figured it out himself. I'm really confused by this interview.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The online portion was just as lame.

Very disappointed in Rand here. Jon Stewart was trying to get Rand to talk about whether Rand's simplified rhetoric in his other public appearances was matching the more nuanced viewpoint Rand was expressing on the show, but Rand just kept firing away at the examples.

For example, Rand says regulations are killing jobs, so we need to get rid of them. However, when discussing the clean air act, he really just has a problem with how it's being implemented in some cases, not the act as a whole. When he says the pendulum needs to swing the other way, he doesn't describe how he wants that to happen. Is he going to try to abolish the clean air act, or does he want to overhaul it, and how would he want to overhaul it. He answered none of that, even though that's clearly where Jon Stewart was trying to go.

Maybe Rand hasn't figured it out himself. I'm really confused by this interview.

He's figured it out himself. And one of the things he has figured out is that if you have only a short interview slot that you don't hurl something out there that you do not have the time to adequately explain. Because if you do, you are building an arsenal of ammo that can and will be thrown at you later.

 

[aclove]

Agreed. Clearly, the lesson he's learned from the Maddow interview is that you don't speak in broad terms unless you know for a fact that you have time to fully explain exactly what you mean. If not, it's easier and safer to use anecdotes that are very cut-and-dried with which no one can disagree. He's determined not to give them anything that can bite him in the ass later.

 

[July]

The online portion was just as lame.

Very disappointed in Rand here. Jon Stewart was trying to get Rand to talk about whether Rand's simplified rhetoric in his other public appearances was matching the more nuanced viewpoint Rand was expressing on the show, but Rand just kept firing away at the examples.

For example, Rand says regulations are killing jobs, so we need to get rid of them. However, when discussing the clean air act, he really just has a problem with how it's being implemented in some cases, not the act as a whole. When he says the pendulum needs to swing the other way, he doesn't describe how he wants that to happen. Is he going to try to abolish the clean air act, or does he want to overhaul it, and how would he want to overhaul it. He answered none of that, even though that's clearly where Jon Stewart was trying to go.

Maybe Rand hasn't figured it out himself. I'm really confused by this interview.

Well, Stewart was looking to get Rand to agree (or disagree) that it's not about getting rid of regulations, but just making them more efficient. Framing the question as freedom vs. tyranny turns it into a more black and white, binary choice. Whereas Rand is trying to illustrate movement-- how regulations start off good and well intentioned at first, and swing to an extreme level over time, that's why he keeps going back to the pendulum. He wants to show change. For that argument to work, the audience must hold both ideas in their head at the same time--regulations as good, and regulations as bad. So getting Rand to frame it into a good vs. bad argument would have disarmed that argument, and promoted the audience to take a side. If you can find a few examples of regulations being good and saving lives, well then, some people might file that away in the good category, and stop thought there, especially if it agrees with their already established assumptions or bias.

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

So getting Rand to frame it into a good vs. bad argument would have disarmed that argument, and promoted the audience to take a side. If you can find a few examples of regulations being good and saving lives, well then, some people might file that away in the good category, and stop thought there, especially if it agrees with their already established assumptions or bias.

Does Rand think that far ahead? Even for a politician? Hell, I don't even know what I'm gonna have for lunch.

 

[July]

Does Rand think that far ahead? Even for a politician? Hell, I don't even know what I'm gonna have for lunch.

Haha....no clue. Probably not. Though he was creepily spot on in predicting Romney would win the debate by a landslide.

But that's just the effect, as I see it. Interviewers who want to swing an opponent back around to their point of view, tend to try and polarize an argument. Taking a side in a black/white argument is basic human psychology.

 

[low preference guy]

When he says the pendulum needs to swing the other way, he doesn't describe how he wants that to happen.

If you read between the lines, his approach is to not be too specific to allow others to use his words against him, then become President, and implement his agenda.

 

[whippoorwill]

That was pretty good.

 

[specsaregood]

For example, Rand says regulations are killing jobs, so we need to get rid of them. However, when discussing the clean air act, he really just has a problem with how it's being implemented in some cases, not the act as a whole. When he says the pendulum needs to swing the other way, he doesn't describe how he wants that to happen. Is he going to try to abolish the clean air act, or does he want to overhaul it, and how would he want to overhaul it. He answered none of that, even though that's clearly where Jon Stewart was trying to go.

Maybe Rand hasn't figured it out himself. I'm really confused by this interview.

On the contrary, after every single section of his book, he has a chapter titled, "How can we solve the problem?" In which he discusses legislation that he has already submitted. His big argument is that much of the regulations and laws being used to impose tyranny are not actually laws passed by the congress; but made up rules by the executive branch and he makes the argument to reign them in by limiting them to only do exactly what congress tells them to do.

http://www.amazon.com/Government-Bu...keywords=government+bullies#reader_1455522759

 

[thoughtomator]

Haha....no clue. Probably not. Though he was creepily spot on in predicting Romney would win the debate by a landslide.

In hindsight, it wasn't a terribly difficult call to make. Romney needed to score a knockdown tonight and we know how detached from reality Obama is, and how non-functional his brain is without a teleprompter.

 

[AlexAmore]

Amazing how Jon Stewart (and liberals in general) can be so heartless. Jon Stewart doesn't think these regulation have been earth shattering? I can come up with tons of completely innocent people doing good things and going to jail for it thanks to regulations. I'm sure that was earth shattering for them.

Liberals piss me off.

 

[July]

Rand Paul Interview on Jon Stewart: Paul and Stewart Do What MSNBC Can't, Have a Real Discussion About the Issues
Matthew Harding

Are you already tired of the presidential debates, where neither candidate truly differentiates himself from the other on the issues that matter? Shouldn't it be rare for us to live in a society where two liars try to out-lie the other liar on national television? Shouldn't that make them “outliars”? Sadly, this is very much the norm in politics. Candidates don’t want to differentiate themselves too much when they’re on live television and standing next to each other. This is in part because it denies us a real chance to see them cover the issues in a meaningful way, as we attempt to make our educated guess as to who we should elect to the most powerful political office in the world.

...

More: http://www.policymic.com/mobile/art...annot-have-a-real-discussion-about-the-issues

 

[kathy88]

The online portion was just as lame.

Very disappointed in Rand here. Jon Stewart was trying to get Rand to talk about whether Rand's simplified rhetoric in his other public appearances was matching the more nuanced viewpoint Rand was expressing on the show, but Rand just kept firing away at the examples.

For example, Rand says regulations are killing jobs, so we need to get rid of them. However, when discussing the clean air act, he really just has a problem with how it's being implemented in some cases, not the act as a whole. When he says the pendulum needs to swing the other way, he doesn't describe how he wants that to happen. Is he going to try to abolish the clean air act, or does he want to overhaul it, and how would he want to overhaul it. He answered none of that, even though that's clearly where Jon Stewart was trying to go.

Maybe Rand hasn't figured it out himself. I'm really confused by this interview.

I think he's trying to ease people into deregulation without sounding too anarchist? Major Lib audience there. Gotta take baby steps.

 

[specsaregood]

I think he's trying to ease people into deregulation without sounding too anarchist? Major Lib audience there. Gotta take baby steps.

Think back to Rand's first senate speech.

As long as I sit at Henry Clay’s desk, I will remember his lifelong desire to forge agreement, but I will also keep close to my heart the principled stand of his cousin Cassius who refused to forsake the life of any human simply to find agreement.

 

[Ariondys]

Extended version here
http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=124587