Rand Paul Creates 50 State Network in Preparation for 2016 bid

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Mar 27, 2014.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Rand Paul is already gearing up for a 2016 presidential bid:

    Watch this video of Rand Paul's speech at the University of California, Berkeley:

    [video=youtube;8vFhXpfEfQg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vFhXpfEfQg#t=193[/video]

    A Republican getting a standing ovation at Berkeley? Might Senator Paul have the crossover appeal the Republican party is looking for?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Sadly it wouldn't much matter - if a republican gets in office, the democrats in the house/senate/et al will do their damnedest to block everything they can. If a democrat is in office, the republicans will do the same.

    Party lines have turned into battle lines, and before anything substantial can be accomplished, that mindset needs to change; we're people of the same country, it's time we work together like we actually give a damn about what happens to us/it!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Actually, until 2009 both parties worked cooperatively. From 2009 forward republican intransigence has been unprecedented in American history...going so far as to reverse ideological positions just because democrats said yes to them.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I guess the last few years have just soured my opinion/memory then

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Fair 'nuff - I've never liked politics to be honest heh... would much prefer a bunch of "do"er's
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    In 2007 the democrats were almost as intent on GWB's destruction as Republicans are on Obama's destruction.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You are not alone. A lot of Americans feel the same way. I think we are in dire need of some serious election reforms. We need to take the special interest money out of our political system. Our elected officials should have only one allegiance and that is to all the people of the nation...not just the moneyed few. So much that happens in our political discourse these days is nothing but theatrics run a muck. The debt ceiling debate is a classic example. You have Republicans like Michelle Bachmann and Ted Cruz running around telling people a debt default is no big deal. I don't think Cruz is that dumb, Bachmann maybe. Fox News, they know better too.

    We need publically financed elections and we should hold our elected officials to ethical standards any Fortune 500 company would expect of their employees. Our elected officials should have only one priority, the health and welfare of American citizens. Anything that conflicts with that priority should not be tolerated, no more lobbyist perks and freebees, no more fund raising, etc., no more conflicted officials.
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I'm hoping (against all hope) that this campaign to enact term limits on congress via an article 5 popular vote works. It'd be a hell of a long haul, but if enough people are dissatisfied and DO SOMETHING about it, there's a chance.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, oh and what leads you to that conclusion? Did Democrats refuse to pass a debt ceiling increase? Did Democrats shut down the government as Republicans did last year? Did Democrats filibuster Republican legislation as Republicans have done under President Obama? Do democrats have their version of the Hastert Rule where bills only go forward with the approval of a majority of the majority party? The answer to all those questions is a clear no. Democrats didn't do any of those things. Democrats were not obstructionists. It is one thing to not like the opposition. It is quite another to be an obstructionist. And it is quite another to use obstruction to the point of threatening the health and wellbeing of every American as congressional republicans have repeatedly done in the last few years.

    Since President Obama was elected we have seen unprecedented obstruction from Republicans in congress. That is a fact Jack...err..Billvon.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Not to mention the... how many votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act have there been now? Isn't it over fifty or something ludicrous like that?
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well the term limit thing sound nice, but when you look at it, it could create more problems than it solves by making elected officials more sensitive to special interests. If you had a job for 4 years and only 4 years, you are probably going to looking to secure another job. So when a special interest group comes knocking on your door are you going to be a little more compliant with their demands? Because in 4 years you know and they know you are going to need a job (e.g. Billy Tauzin).


    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/under-the-influence/
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Yes, in a big way. They also regularly filibustered judicial appointments under Bush.
    Yes. The previous shutdown was the democrats who refused to compromise with GHW.
    Wow. If you believe that . . .
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Right, lets get rid of anyone with experience, and swear in a bunch of noobs who can be easily manipulated by lobbyists.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    If Democrats regularly filibustered judicial nominations as you claim, then how did we go from a liberal court to one of most conservative courts in modern history? Unfortunately for you and your fellow republicans, your claims are demonstrably wrong. But then Republicans don’t constrain themselves with reality, facts or honesty.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/senate-filibusters.html?_r=0

    Ok, give me some dates. When did the democratic congress shut down the government during George Junior’s administration?

    The reality is, the fact is, democrats didn't shut down the government while George Jr. was POTUS. The government has only been shutdown twice in the last 24 years. And both times it was a republican congress which shut the government down. This is yet another example of how divorced from reality Republicans really are.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

    Yeah, unfortunately for you and your fellow republicans, some people are not totally divorced from realty and facts and honesty still means something. You need to bet your head out of republican entertainment every once in a while and smell the scent of honesty and reality every once in a while. Unfortunately for you and your fellow republicans, with a little work, everything I have said can be validated as true. You cannot say the same. 

    False equivalence is an all too common ploy used by republicans to minimize their transgressions. The fact is there is no equivalence between the Republican and Democratic parties.
     
  17. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    True, but as it is now, they can become complacent knowing that the special interest groups will continue to pay them and they have a job forever no matter how badly they muck it up. The idea is to set limits - every 4 years they are up for election and, if I'm not mistaken, they can only be re-elected 4 times.


    Better noobs that we can then kick out than people already under the sway of special interest "big bucks" who know they won't be removed no matter how bad a job they do... lets face it, when was the last time you saw anyone in the senate / house removed?
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    It is indicative of how far left you are that:

    1) You think democrats never filibustered any judicial appointments under GWB
    2) You feel the democrats are noble heroes whose failures are due solely to being victims of the evil, obstructionist republicans
    3) You think that I am a republican.

    In general, if you are so far to one side that you can no longer even see the center, you'll miss a few things.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You are being a little dishonest. You are creating a straw man. I never said democrats never filibustered under George Junior. The issue was the number of filibusters and the level of dysfunction attained by republicans under President Obama. And I gave you a listing of filibusters under democratic and republican presidents to back up what I wrote. Democratic congresses have clearly and significantly filibustered less than their republican counterparts. The record show democrats have been more cooperative than their republican colleagues. The record shows, republicans have used an unprecedented number of filibusters during President Obama's terms in office.

    Unfortunately, for most republicans, facts are nothing compared to their party demagoguery.

    I didn’t say that either, nor do I think it. You are being dishonest again. You are setting up another straw man. The issue here is the unprecedented republican obstruction in congress since President Obama became POTUS. It isn’t the Democratic Party. The real victims here are the American people. It was the American people and the American economy that was threatened when republicans in congress threatened to not raise the debt ceiling which would cause the nation to default on its debts and obligations for the first time in our history. And Republicans did it not once, but twice.

    Yep, I think that is pretty clear by your many posts, including this one. If you are not a republican you wouldn’t have to use illogical arguments and ignore facts.

    In general, facts and logical arguments don’t have sides. Illogical arguments and counterfactual arguments do. I am still waiting for you to give the dates of the government shut down you attribute to democrats under George Junior. You cannot produce those dates, because they don’t exist (e.g. my previous post).

    The verifiable truth is there have been two government shut downs in the last quarter century, and both of them were caused by republican congresses.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    Which is why Obama has had almost as many judges filibustered as every other president combined?
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Skin Deep

    It's one thing to get applause at Berkeley, and the audience is certainly going to rally against domestic espionage—just as they have for decades—but Steve Benen explained, a week ago, realistic limitations to any crossover appeal one might read into the UC event:

    At UC Berkeley, where those with progressive values are the clear majority, hearing a red-state Republican senator break with his party and criticize the National Security State is very likely a pleasant change of pace. And for Paul, this is a point of critical importance: he sees himself in a unique position, because he, unlike his GOP colleagues, can actually receive applause in a setting like this one.

    But as is often the case, there’s a superficiality to Paul’s standing. He thinks he can connect with these college students because he’s opposed to NSA overreach. The senator also thinks he can credibly reference Martin Luther King, since the civil-rights icon was spied upon. Paul thinks he can embrace a “right to privacy” that most of his party insists does not exist in our constitutional system.

    But what happens when the students at UC Berkeley scratch the surface?

    What happens when they learn the senator referencing King also opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, then partnered with neo-Confederate who celebrates the birthday of Abraham Lincoln’s assassin?

    What happens when they learn the Republican who believes in a “right to privacy” also believes the government can and should be used to restrict women’s reproductive rights and prohibit gay rights?

    What happens when they learn Paul rejects national-security overreach, but told a national television audience last year that he’s comfortable with the executive branch having the authority to use drones on Americans over U.S. soil if an administration perceives an “imminent threat”?

    What happens when they learn the senator is happy to speak at UC Berkeley, but even happier to talk to Glenn Beck and WorldNetDaily, both of which he considers reliable sourecs of important insights on current events?

    It's a fair question, especially if the Senator from Kentucky would try to use race as a weapon ... at Berkeley.

    Perhaps some would view Berkeley's liberal history as a symbol of stupidity, but it is, in fact, a world-class institution. Given that the senator's appearance there was carefully crafted political theatre, the activist response was also calculated. For instance, I sometimes wonder—and only half-jokingly, at that—which of my gun-nut neighbors, upon being proven right as some force foreign or domestic invades our streets with warlike belligerence, would actually take moral satisfaction in hoarding weapons for himself; you know, like believing he's leaving the hippie scum to die like they deserve or something. The question only arises on certain occasions, in the face of extreme firearm advocacy that leaves one wondering if the advocate is actually hoping for such violence in the streets. At any rate, no, Berkeley isn't going to boo an argument against domestic espionage, no matter how opportunistic, come-lately, or historically ignorant, simply because the speaker is a political figure well-known for deliberately inflammatory rhetoric looking to cut his diversity chops by race-baiting from the Berkeley Forum.

    If people keep talking about how surprising is the idea of diversity and tolerance at Berkeley, we can be certain the Forum will simply guard against such idiotic criticism in the future.

    (Maybe next they should refuse lifesaving medical treatment because the EMT isn't a vegan.)

    But, yeah, if Republicans want to prod Berkeley because people were polite and focused on the presentation the guest was delivering, well, sure, the UC activist community will be happy to crucify the junior senator from Kentucky for the racist whore he is.

    Which only reminds the limit of Rand Paul's crossover potential. The more anyone tries to play up his Berkeley Forum appearance as some evidence of diverse appeal, the less likely the activist community will be polite next time.

    I would only, then, make the specific point that the next time someone wonders why a person's stance on, say, abortion or gays or whatever, affects their qualifications as a defense or farm administrator, or some similar question, this would be exactly the reason. That is to say, if one doesn't disrupt, others apparently take it as some assertion of complicity or, at least, complaisance.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Benen, Steve. "A credible message, a less credible messenger". MSNBC. March 20, 2014. MSNBC.com. March 27, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/credible-message-less-credible-messenger
     
  22. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Is Rand Paul a tea party candidate?
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    As the son of Ron Paul, one of the firebrands of the Libertarian Party, he started out with a platform that was largely libertarian (i.e., socially liberal but fiscally conservative). This has some appeal to the Tea Party, which now supports him.
     

Share This Page