Why I Hope Rand Paul Eventually Runs For President -
April 27th, 2012, 11:15 AM
Rand Paul, son of Ron paul, has been taking the political world for a spin since his election to the United States senate in 2010. As a graduate of the Duke medical program and former practicing ophthalmologist, Rand has garnered a reputation for the being the most conservative voter in the senate. A far right libertarian by nature, Rand has been a poster boy for the Tea Party who was seen as legitimizing a movement that was often ridiculed for some of it's more outlandish supporters. With this post, I hope to make the case for why Rand can accomplish what his father simply can't.
One of the problems with Ron is Ron is seen as too liberal to gather any conservative votes. Rand does not have this problem. His voting record has been the most conservative of any senator in several decades. A libertarian that will have the conservative base in his favor along with the independents/libertarians? Incredible and there is no way a democrat could beat that turnout. Rand battles both the democrats and republicans on many issues. Here is a video that exemplifies what I am stating and thankfully it cuts off Mr. Annoyingly Perfect Hannity at the end.
The amazing detail is that there many liberals that agree with and like Rand. He appears to be infinitely more likeable than his father despite his ultra-conservative voting record. Now let's examine where he stands on the issues, in convenient bullet form. I'll highlight what I consider important and add in things not covered in the article on ONTHEISSUES.org. BTW, don't you hate when someone makes this kind of thread and doesn't put stuff in easy to read bullet form?
On Abortion
Life begins at conception.
Opposes federal abortion funding.
Prohibit federal funding for abortion.
Maintains that it is a state right to legislate its legality
On Budget and Economy
Government not serious about controlling spending.
Larger government is not a solution for economy.
Debt crisis is approaching a point of no return.
Bank bailout was bad policy & helped no banks in KY.
No federal bailouts of private industry.
Demand a Balanced Budget amendment.
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate.
Sponsored bill increasing debt limit to $16.7 trillion.
Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge.
Disapprove of increasing the debt limit.
Liberty Candidate: End the Federal Reserve.
On Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector.
Opposes same-sex marriage.
Opposes affirmative action.
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage on federal level.
Maintains same-sex marriage is a matter or state rights
On Drugs
Tackle drug problem; no one cares where funding comes from.
Community treatment instead of federal anti-drug programs.
Drug abuse isn't a pressing issue; 10-20 years is too harsh.
Favors legalizing medical marijuana.
On Education
Support homeschooling and parental responsibility.
Supports dismantling Department of Education
Supports transferring grants/scholarships/loans for higher education to other departments
Finally and most importantly in my opinion
On Government Reform
Federal contracts should include no-PAC clauses.
FactCheck: No, Kagan never said she'd regulate vegetable eating.
Lobbyists' sole goal is to rip you off.
No Pork Pledge: decrease earmarking; increase transparency.
Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill.
Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them.
Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced.
There is more about him on the issues including energy and oil that you can view here Rand Paul.
So as you can see, this version of the Pauls is extremely conservative but still maintains his objectivity to allow for many social issues, or matters of subjective morality to be governed by the state sovereignty. This is an important belief and understanding we need in any president because not only is it constitutional, but it upholds why the whole system of statehood is so important. A union of sovereign states where social issues are left up to the people, not one party's subjective viewpoint. This is why Rand will accomplish what his father simply can't, should he ever run for presidential office. He is conservative beyond any other candidate in recent memory yet he does not seek to create a divisive environment where people are alienated because his subjective morality would not be forced on them. His secret? He is intelligent enough and articulate enough to be able to convey this to the american public in a way his father just bumbles and fumbles through.
Contributing to the fall of ideas, one post at a time
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
April 27th, 2012, 11:44 AM
Thank you! I have been eager to find out more about Rand. I hope his rise continues.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Hey Wiz, thanks for posting and I agree. I think his rise will continue. It seems like Romney probably won't beat Obama so by 2016 I think Rand's stock will be sky high. Could you imagine a Rand and Ron ticket?? How historic would that be.
Contributing to the fall of ideas, one post at a time
Maybe Ron's efforts now will pay off and help Rand win elections in the future.
I've hear some people say that, in this regard, Ron Paul has already won, because he has started somewhat of a chain reaction of a change in the ideological landscape of the country.
Oh yea, I am not knocking Ron for his work. Without Ron there would be no Rand ! Ron is awesome but I just don't believe that he can win a general election because neither the conservative or liberal base gets behind him. Rand will have the conservative base behind him and will still be objective enough to bring liberty back to the forefront. I also think both Ron and Rand would clean up Washington given the chance but I think Rand has the better chance. There is just something about Rand that resonates with many people.
Contributing to the fall of ideas, one post at a time
I've often wondered if Rand Paul was wrung out of the same old smelly Libertarian sock as his lunatic daddy, it appears that he isn't. While they're both "fans" of atheist/adulterer/baby murderer Ayn Rand, it looks like Rand Paul has more conservative credentials than his "If it feels good do it" Libertarian daddy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU
It's interesting how Rand Paul can "oppose same sex marriage", yet at the same time believe that buggerites marrying is a "states rights matter".
Perhaps Ralphie, who is neutral on all matters, can explain that.
"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other... Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet."
Rand Paul, son of Ron paul, has been taking the political world for a spin since his election to the United States senate in 2010. As a graduate of the Duke medical program and former practicing ophthalmologist, Rand has garnered a reputation for the being the most conservative voter in the senate. A far right libertarian by nature, Rand has been a poster boy for the Tea Party who was seen as legitimizing a movement that was often ridiculed for some of it's more outlandish supporters. With this post, I hope to make the case for why Rand can accomplish what his father simply can't.
One of the problems with Ron is Ron is seen as too liberal to gather any conservative votes. Rand does not have this problem. His voting record has been the most conservative of any senator in several decades. A libertarian that will have the conservative base in his favor along with the independents/libertarians? Incredible and there is no way a democrat could beat that turnout. Rand battles both the democrats and republicans on many issues.
The amazing detail is that there many liberals that agree with and like Rand. He appears to be infinitely more likeable than his father despite his ultra-conservative voting record. Now let's examine where he stands on the issues, in convenient bullet form. I'll highlight what I consider important and add in things not covered in the article on ONTHEISSUES.org. BTW, don't you hate when someone makes this kind of thread and doesn't put stuff in easy to read bullet form?
On Abortion
Life begins at conception.
Opposes federal abortion funding.
Prohibit federal funding for abortion.
Maintains that it is a state right to legislate its legality
The problem with this position is that it's un-American. We don't elect dictators in this country. Our politicians are supposed to be representing the people they SERVE, not dictating their beliefs, opinions, or personal imperatives. So it doesn't matter what any political candidate "believes" regarding abortion. What matters is will he/she uphold the will of the people he/she is empowered to represent and SERVE, or not. ANY candidate for public office that runs on the promise that they will force some issue or other as government policy is in effect, proclaiming that they will not act on behalf of the people they are supposed to be SERVING, but instead will be enforcing their own personal ideals through the abuse of their political office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
On Budget and Economy
Government not serious about controlling spending.
Larger government is not a solution for economy.
Debt crisis is approaching a point of no return.
Neither is smaller government.
The fact that Rand Paul is willing to spew out this foolishly over-simplistic nonsense is partly what convinces me that he's either an idiot or a liar.
Government is only going to be as serious about controlling spending as we are serious about controlling government. And the size of government that is reasonable and necessary is directly proportional to the size and complexity of the population it's intended to SERVE. We are a very large and diverse nation, and we can't function without a fairly large and complex government. Our problem has nothing to do with the size of our government, and has everything to do with how well (or not) it's working. What we desperately need to do is not shrink the size of government, but reorganize it so that it works properly. And we are not going to even begin to accomplish this much-needed task while our politicians are still spewing these overly simplified and misleading "boogeyman" issues.
The way to minimize debt is to stop borrowing money. The way to stop borrowing money is to stop spending more than we have. The way to stop spending more than we have is to cut waste, reform the tax system, and prioritize expenses based on a clarified definition of the essential purpose of government. None of these will be easy to accomplish, but we have to start by at least being honest with ourselves about the problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
Bank bailout was bad policy & helped no banks in KY.
No federal bailouts of private industry.
Anytime I hear a politician proclaim absolutes like this, I know he's either an idiot or a liar. If one thing is true of life, it's 'never say never'. We need our politicians to be open-minded toward any possible solution, and smart enough to recognize when they are likely to work, or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
Demand a Balanced Budget amendment.
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate.
Sponsored bill increasing debt limit to $16.7 trillion.
Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge.
Disapprove of increasing the debt limit.
Liberty Candidate: End the Federal Reserve.
May be helpful, but they don't address the real issues. And they aren't achievable, anyway, until we begin to address the real issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
On Civil Rights
Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector.
Opposes same-sex marriage.
Opposes affirmative action.
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage on federal level.
Maintains same-sex marriage is a matter or state rights
Again, what Rand Paul opposes or supports regarding civil rights is irrelevant, except that he seems to imagine that as a politician, it's his prerogative to force everyone else to comply. As such, I would consider him a traitor to the most fundamental goals of the Unites States of America. Any politician who imagines that he has the right to enforce his moral will through the abuse of his position as a public SERVANT deserves to be impeached and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's the primary purpose of government in this country to establish and protect our civil rights, and every politician who takes the oath of office swears to uphold, protect, and defend those basic rights. There are no clauses in there about whether or not he agrees with those rights. And there is no admonition to pervert the process of government by stacking the courts or passing responsibility down to the states whenever you don't want to respect the rights of your fellow citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
On Drugs
Tackle drug problem; no one cares where funding comes from.
Community treatment instead of federal anti-drug programs.
Drug abuse isn't a pressing issue; 10-20 years is too harsh.
Favors legalizing medical marijuana.
I agree that we need to completely overhaul our approach to drug abuse in this country, putting the emphasis on addiction treatment instead of criminal prosecution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
On Education
Support homeschooling and parental responsibility.
Supports dismantling Department of Education
Supports transferring grants/scholarships/loans for higher education to other departments
This is just idiocy. Once again he throws out the usual "boogeyman" and the usual foolish "destroy the system" solution. When once again, the solution does not lay in the changing the size of the system, but in minimizing it's mismanagement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
Finally and most importantly in my opinion
On Government Reform
Federal contracts should include no-PAC clauses.
FactCheck: No, Kagan never said she'd regulate vegetable eating.
Lobbyists' sole goal is to rip you off.
No Pork Pledge: decrease earmarking; increase transparency.
Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill.
Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them.
Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced.
Too much emphasis on the budget, and on 'politics' , and too little emphasis on re-establishing the primary purpose of government, and on re-organizing how it works so as to better and more efficiently achieve that purpose.
But we can't expect Rand Paul to preach what he doesn't, himself, know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
So as you can see, this version of the Pauls is extremely conservative but still maintains his objectivity to allow for many social issues, or matters of subjective morality to be governed by the state sovereignty. This is an important belief and understanding we need in any president because not only is it constitutional, but it upholds why the whole system of statehood is so important. A union of sovereign states where social issues are left up to the people, not one party's subjective viewpoint. This is why Rand will accomplish what his father simply can't, should he ever run for presidential office. He is conservative beyond any other candidate in recent memory yet he does not seek to create a divisive environment where people are alienated because his subjective morality would not be forced on them. His secret? He is intelligent enough and articulate enough to be able to convey this to the american public in a way his father just bumbles and fumbles through.
Obviously, I don't agree.
Until he learns the fundamental purpose of government, and the fundamental purpose of THIS government, he'll be mostly useless to us.
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
April 28th, 2012, 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newman
Ron Paul has already won, because he has started somewhat of a chain reaction of a change in the ideological landscape of the country.
This is what is has always been about. Ron knew he wasn't going to win (although he spoke of winning to keep donars and delegates coming). It is about his idea of sound money, free markets and liberty spreading around, especially to young people.
He's been a smashing success!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy
Hey Wiz, thanks for posting and I agree. I think his rise will continue. It seems like Romney probably won't beat Obama so by 2016 I think Rand's stock will be sky high. Could you imagine a Rand and Ron ticket?? How historic would that be.
He'll be 80. That's pretty old to start consecutive 4-year terms
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It's interesting how Rand Paul can "oppose same sex marriage", yet at the same time believe that buggerites marrying is a "states rights matter".
Perhaps Ralphie, who is neutral on all matters, can explain that.
You are soooo dense. First, it is a state's rights issue. Always was. Who issues marriage certificates, alaCarte? States do! Therefore, who should decide who received a state-issued certificate? This is a legal argument.
Second, Rand Paul opposes same sex marriage, personally. This is a matter of personal opinion.
There are two arguments here and you only perceive one.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
First, it is a state's rights issue. Always was. Who issues marriage certificates, alaCarte? States do! Therefore, who should decide who received a state-issued certificate? This is a legal argument.
No, it's a civil rights issue, and as such is the responsibility of the federal government to establish, uphold, and protect. Not only that, but it's not even workable as a state right issue. We can't have people legally married in one state who aren't legally married in another. It's stupid, and would create legal contradictions that are eminently unjust and unresolvable.
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
April 28th, 2012, 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
No, it's a civil rights issue, and as such is the responsibility of the federal government to establish, uphold, and protect.
So you are free to assert. Strange that it has never been a "civil rights" issue until the past few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
Not only that, but it's not even workable as a state right issue.
Marriage has worked as a state's rights issue since our nation's inception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
We can't have people legally married in one state who aren't legally married in another. It's stupid, and would create legal contradictions that are eminently unjust and unresolvable.
There are all sorts of licenses issued by each state which may or may not be recognized by another. If I register a gun for a concealed-carry permit with my state, my neighbor states are not compelled to recognize this license.
You would be the one breaking hundreds of years of precedent on this one. It's a state-rights issue and always has been. Keep the federal government out of it.
Should the federal government start issuing marriage licenses?
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
So you are free to assert. Strange that it has never been a "civil rights" issue until the past few years.
Well, when the racists could no longer hate on people of color, and get away with it, they switched to hating on homosexuals. So now that is the civil rights issue. Hard to say who will be next, but they have to hate on someone, so I'm sure there will be a new scapegoat for them to hate, eventually.
Marriage is already a nationally enforced legal contract. If you are legally married in Main you are considered legally married everywhere else in the U.S., and if you are legally divorced in Nevada, you are considered legally divorced in the other states. Just because a state issues the license, doesn't mean it's not a nationally enforceable contract. And this has always been the case.
One of the reasons this matters so much more these days is that people move around a lot more, now, than they used to. And this is why the uniformity of legal rights and responsibilities has become a bigger issue than it once was. It's also why, by necessity, states will have to become more inter-compliant regarding government policies, especially policies effecting individual rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
Marriage has worked as a state's rights issue since our nation's inception.
There are all sorts of licenses issued by each state which may or may not be recognized by another. If I register a gun for a concealed-carry permit with my state, my neighbor states are not compelled to recognize this license.
You would be the one breaking hundreds of years of precedent on this one. It's a state-rights issue and always has been. Keep the federal government out of it.
These old "precedents" are becoming unworkable, now. And many of them should never have been state rights to begin with, as they involve our fundamental rights as citizens of the nation. Like it or not, as we mature as a nation, we are going to have to let go of our old prejudices and our old ways, and begin to learn to respect our differences.
After all, this country was created for the expressed purpose of establishing equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for all. Just because we have not fully achieved this stated purpose in the past doesn't mean we are relieved of our responsibility to continue to try.
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
April 28th, 2012, 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
Marriage is already a nationally enforced legal contract. If you are legally married in Main you are considered legally married everywhere else in the U.S., and if you are legally divorced in Nevada, you are considered legally divorced in the other states. Just because a state issues the license, doesn't mean it's not a nationally enforceable contract. And this has always been the case.
It depends on the type of marriage.
Edit RE recognition of marriage outside state jurisdiction: would principles of comity apply to same-sex marriage?
You are correct that marriages are recognized nationally. Would this apply to same-sex marriage?
In the United States, common-law marriages are still recognized in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and the District of Columbia
Notice that these marriages are also based on the law in individual states.
Is common-law marriage also a civil-rights issue?
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
April 28th, 2012, 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
One of the reasons this matters so much more these days is that people move around a lot more, now, than they used to. And this is why the uniformity of legal rights and responsibilities has become a bigger issue than it once was. It's also why, by necessity, states will have to become more inter-compliant regarding government policies, especially policies effecting individual rights.
Sound like excuses for handing more power and control to the federal government. It's not like you would ever be supporting Rand Paul anyway . I have a feeling that you would disagree on most issues; federalism would definitely be one of them. Unfortunately for you in this case, the federal government is the one standing in the way via the defense of Marriage Act.
Of all people, you should be arguing in favor of allowing states to rule on issues of marriage as they have been since day one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
These old "precedents" are becoming unworkable, now. And many of them should never have been state rights to begin with, as they involve our fundamental rights as citizens of the nation.
That's the crux of the debate; is gay marriage a civil right? Also, do not be so quick to brush past "old precedents" when it is an issue of Constitutionality. We enjoy the benefits of many old precedents.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Maintains that it is a state right to legislate its legality
Here is the problem. He says he is prof life, but if California wants to murder children in the womb, that is ok with him. Therefore, he is pro choice, he will let them do what they want. That is afterall, what choice means.
! Ron is awesome but I just don't believe that he can win a general election because neither the conservative or liberal base gets behind him. Rand will have the conservative base behind him and will still be objective enough to bring liberty back to the forefront. I also think both Ron and Rand would clean up Washington given the chance but I think Rand has the better chance. There is just something about Rand that resonates with many people.
This is what is has always been about. Ron knew he wasn't going to win (although he spoke of winning to keep donars and delegates coming). It is about his idea of sound money, free markets and liberty spreading around, especially to young people.
He'll be 80. That's pretty old to start consecutive 4-year terms 
States do! Therefore, who should decide who received a state-issued certificate? This is a legal argument.
Linear Mode
