Even though I still won't vote for that flip-flopping neocon, I'm starting to like Rand more just for how butthurt he's clearly made boutons_shill
There's a reason why no one takes Paul seriously. A real libertarian would support LGBT rights and marriage equality. This guy's just a corporate Republican sellout shining the shoes of the Koch brothers. Oh and he'll bomb the out of Iran and kill us all.
That has a lot to do with the political extremism and complete lack of actual discourse in this country. A lot of that is a direct result of the strategies that the GOP has been using singe Reagan.
As I've been saying for years, he's nothing like his father. There's a reason why he only has a fraction of Ron's voter base. Whether you agree or disagree with Ron's views, he always maintained his principles and spoke uncomfortable truths regardless of whether they were politically popular or aligned with GOP orthodoxy. That's why he gained so many supporters in the first place. Rand, meanwhile, is a disingenuous flip-flopper who has backed off of any non-neocon positions in order to supposedly boost his chances of getting elected. In reality, as a garden-variety neocon, he doesn't stand a chance against similar hacks like Jeb and Cruz, and he's alienating his core base.
No, it actually started with LBJ and the Democrats' infamous "Daisy" ad in 1964.
Fear mongering in political ads has been going on for 200 years in newspapers.
I'm not speaking exclusively to political fearmongering. That predates the 60s for sure, even if LBJ took it to new levels.
I'm speaking to the idea that you have to wage war against the political opponent. Of course there have been situations in the past where two men didn't like each other and they went at it tooth and nail.
However, the Reagan strategy to systematically paint the other party as the enemy on a national level was pretty new, at least in it's apoplexy. Since then, it's been spiraling pretty badly.
I mean, it's no coincidence that modern day politics more closely resembles the WWE than actual discourse on the issues. There is a large core of voters who care about how a candidate "appears" in front of a camera, what kind of mus he eats, more than they focus on the actual heartbeat of the message. Romney, who was one of the most boring primary winners ever, won the first presidential debate essentially by lying and being aggressive rather than his actual political chops.
I like Rand. He's probably the only one I'd consider voting for at this point. I'd prefer his dad but no way the elites or their media shills would allow that to happen. Rand is more of a flip flopper but I think he sees the angles.
I don't think he'll get the nomination though, hope I'm wrong. man if it's Jeb vs Hillary
Jeb is the favorite, but I think he is clumsy enough to blow it even to these candidates in the primary.I like Rand. He's probably the only one I'd consider voting for at this point. I'd prefer his dad but no way the elites or their media shills would allow that to happen. Rand is more of a flip flopper but I think he sees the angles.
I don't think he'll get the nomination though, hope I'm wrong. man if it's Jeb vs Hillary
asshole saying asshole privatization stuff
Rand Paul: America's hungry seniors should turn to charity
Koren noted that by 2020, the annual cost of medical care for seniors who fall is expected to reach $54.9 billion—many magnitudes more than the approximately $2 billion per year the federal government spends on nutrition assistance for senior citizens.
Sen. Paul, however, explicitly rejected this logic. “It’s curious that only in Washington can you spend $2 billion and claim that you’re saving money,” he said. “The idea or notion that spending money in Washington somehow is saving money really flies past most of the taxpayers.”
Instead, Paul touted the “nobility of private charity” as opposed to government-funded “transfer programs.” He suggested privatizing Meals on Wheels and other government assistance for hungry seniors.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...y?detail=email
Time picks Rand Paul to fluff the Koch brothers, and Rand Paul delivers
the task of blurbing why the Koch brothers are God's gift to America fell to ... Sen. Rand Paul.
(Right now, somewhere in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker is once again crying into his soup.)
Sen. Paul, who would benefit greatly if the Koch brothers find him favorable and choose to shower him with their blessings, delivers the blowjob as only a true professional could.
What is underappreciated is their passion for freedom and their commitment to ideas. Unlike many crony capitalists who troll the halls of Congress looking for favors, the Kochs have consistently lobbied against special-interest politics. HOLY !
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...8Daily+Kos%29#
RP getting trashing he deserves
What a Rand Paul World Would Look Like: 6 Things You Should Know About the War-Mongering, Faux Libertarian
But Paul's delicately crafted maverick image is far from the reality. Here are six things younger and more progressive voters need to know about Rand Paul.
1. Rand Paul wants more military spending and more war in the Middle East.
Rand Paul has grown a reputation for anti-interventionism over the years partly by association with his stridently anti-interventionist father Ron Paul, and partly on account of statements he made during his early years as a senator. To be fair, he has staked out a slightly less rabid position on Iran than some other GOP presidential hopefuls, though that's not saying much. As with all politicians, the key is not to watch what they say but what they actually propose and vote for.
On March 25, Rand Paul introduced a budget amendment calling for a whopping $190 billion increase to military spending. The United States already spends more on war and military expenses than almost the entire rest of the world combined. Paul hasn't yet clarified what he thinks that $190 billion would be spent on, if not to facilitate more wars abroad. To pay for it, he calls for drastic cuts to climate change research, education, housing assistance, and foreign aid.
Rand Paul was even more hawkish than his Republican colleagues on dealing with ISIS, proposing a full-scale military assault that would almost certainly have demanded a resurgence of American troops on the ground in Iraq. No matter what one thinks of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, it's difficult to argue that Rand Paul would be any kind of improvement from an anti-interventionist perspective.
2. Rand Paul would be even worse for students and the middle class than other Republicans.
Rand Paul's proposed budget is cruel and shortsighted even by Republican standards, cons uting a massive giveaway to the extremely wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Paul's budget would entirely eliminate funding for the Department of Education The worst case scenario there would be the elimination of funding for public schools entirely, while the best case would be allowing block grants to states to spend education money as they see fit. So if Alabama wanted to make education funding dependent on teaching students that dinosaurs lived alongside humans before missing Noah's ark, they would be allowed to do that in Rand Paul's perfect world without pesky oversight from the federal government.
But that's not all. Elementary students would lose school lunches, as well as children's health insurance programs and other food assistance. Paul made a splash with his proposal to allow students to deduct their tuition over the course of their working career, but that itself is a wolf in sheep's clothing: the plan would do little to help students burdened by student loans who cannot find a job after college, and it would further starve the government of the revenues it needs for programs like education, which Paul plans to cut. But Rand Paul didn't have any difficulty in placing the interests of big banks over those of students by voting against Elizabeth Warren's proposal to allow students to borrow money from the government at the same low rate that banks do. Meanwhile, Rand Paul also supports repealing the Affordable Care Act, including its provision that allows Americans under 26 to remain on their parents' health plans.
And it's not just students and young adults who would suffer under Rand Paul. He would eliminate the Housing and Urban Development and Energy departments, crucial instruments for improving blighted neighborhoods, helping working Americans achieve middle-class stability, and moving the country toward a renewable energy future.
Last but not least, his budget also calls for privatizing Medicare and Social Security, slashing Medicaid, and dramatically cutting taxes on the obscenely wealthy during a period of record income and wealth inequality. He also wants to repeal even the modest constraints placed on Wall Street in the wake of the Great Recession. His flat tax plan would dramatically decrease taxes on the super-rich, and raise them on the poor and middle class. In short, Rand Paul's economic policies are a betrayal of the poor and middle class, further enriching the 1% and Wall Street at the expense of everyone else. On these issues alone the glaring difference between Rand Paul and even the most conservative Democrat could not be more stark. Paul would be an utter disaster on core, bread-and-butter economic issues not only for students but Americans of all ages and backgrounds.
3. Rand Paul voted against reforming the NSA.
One of Paul's supposed differences with the Washington establishment is his stated opposition to the surveillance state and his support for privacy rights. Rand Paul is indeed vocal in his opposition to the renewal of the Patriot Act, but the devil is in the details. When Paul had a real opportunity to curtail the NSA's power in November of last year, he infuriated civil liberties advocates by voting against a bill that would have dramatically scaled back NSA operations on the grounds that the reforms would be part of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act might be modified when it comes up for renewable, but it's very unlikely to be scrapped entirely. So civil liberties advocates know that the best chance at reforming the NSA will come by making alterations to the law. Which means that when Rand Paul opposes NSA reform on a hardline stance against renewing the Patriot Act, he gets to have his cake and eat it, too: he wins support from privacy-minded voters while ensuring that the establishment knows he's not a real threat to make even minor changes to how the security state does business.
Meanwhile, despite her reputation as an establishment friend of the security state, Hillary Clinton herself joined with NSA critic Mark Udall in voicing support for the need to makes changes to surveillance law to defend privacy. If Ms. Clinton were to accept restrictions to the NSA as part of a Patriot Act renewal or other related vote, she would do far more to defend privacy than Rand Paul has ever done.
4. Rand Paul opposes marriage quality and reproductive choice.
Despite styling himself as a libertarian who favors privacy rights, Rand Paul stridently opposes both abortion rights and gay marriage, sticking the government in your womb and in your bedroom. On abortion Rand Paul goes further than even many of his Republican colleagues, opposing abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Using the federal government's power to force a 13-year-old to carry her father's baby to term is hardly the portrait of freedom. When challenged, he tried to dodge the question by saying the issue wasn't worth talking about. As if that weren't bad enough, Rand Paul also took the extraordinary step of voting against the Violence Against Women Act.
On marriage equality, Rand Paul continue to take an archaic stance against the rights of LGBT Americans to marry and strengthen household stability, despite blaming the weakening of marriage for increased poverty among straight Americans.
5. Rand Paul advocates for discriminatory laws.
Paul famously opposed the Civil Rights Act, including its provisions demanding that all Americans be treated equally regardless of race. He then attempted to backtrack on that statement by claiming that civil rights provisions should be left up to the states to decide, but that's an obvious dodge, given that the Civil Rights Act was passed at the federal level precisely because intransigent, mostly former Confederate states adamantly refused to integrate schools or force businesses to serve blacks as well as whites at the lunch counter.
If civil rights were left entirely up to states to decide, many states would still be stuck in the Jim Crow era. Which is precisely how conservative politicians like Rand Paul who advocate for "state's rights" in the realm of civil liberties want it. Paul's antiquated views on civil liberties match up with his support for discriminatory voter ID laws on their merits (if not on their politics), and his steadfast opposition to gay rights.
6. Rand Paul does not support decriminalizing drugs.
As we've seen, Rand Paul often pretends to be something he is not on many issues, not least of which is drug policy. While his father, Ron Paul, is a strong advocate of drug decriminalization, the son has not followed in his father's footsteps. In fact, he has gone out of his way to distance himself from his father on the issue to reassure the GOP base. He has publicly assured conservative evangelicals that he disagrees with drug decriminalization, and that his father's views on the subject should not be attributed to him. Paul's stance even on marijuana, much less harder drugs, isn't "live and let live," but rather just more of the same "just say no."
It's true that Rand Paul advocates sentencing reforms for nonviolent drug offenses, but so do many Democrats, including President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Not that drug policy really matters much at the presidential level, since Congress is unlikely to put any sort of decriminalization bill on the president's desk. On that front, the real work is happening in the states, where Democrats are leading the push for relaxation of drug laws over strident Republican opposition.
http://www.alternet.org/what-rand-pa...ter1034958&t=1
You are full of crap Boutons as usual. Lets take this step by step.
1. Rand Paul wants more military spending and more war in the Middle East
You (or more specifically the people who's talking points you are parroting) use as evidence the bill proposing an increase in 190 in aid with cuts on domestic projects to fund it. Lets actually do analysis of the situation that led to this bill. Cruz and others offered an amendment an increase of 190 billion but offered no appropriate spending decreases into funding it. Rand quickly countered with this bill to prove the point that these Republican's are not serious about balancing the budget or cutting spending, because they all voted against it. It was a political calculation designed to give him ammunition in the primaries.
Rand Paul has repeatedly proposed defense cuts and less foreign spending overseas. The argument above takes out of context the situation and is disingenuous.
2. Rand Paul would be even worse for students and the middle class than other Republicans.
Federal funding for Education vs local control is simply an ideological difference. Federal control over education has just as many negatives as state control, and mistakes at the Federal Level are harder to correct than mistakes at the state level. But instead of focusing on actual differences that exist and the reason for those differences, your talking points make references to Jesus on a Dinosaur.
4. Rand Paul opposes marriage quality and reproductive choice
Paul has stressed neither of these opinions much outside of making normal republican comments on the matter or abortion, and more states rights comments on the subject of gay marriage. Abortion is a complicated issues, and the idea that somebody pro-life is anti-women is not making headway. Paul has also shied away from condemning both before and after conception birth control. To try to paint him as a radical on the subject is stupid liberal spin.
5. Rand Paul advocates for discriminatory laws
Again, the article is taking issues out of context. Paul said that he would have voted for the act but he did have some issues with the government telling people what they could do on private property, and that he wished there could have been a market solution. This is simply a libertarian leaning view. This also ignores all the bills and arguments he has made for criminal justice and voting reform and their discriminatory elements. Again, full of crap
6. Rand Paul does not support decriminalizing drugs.
Well, at lease they mention that Paul supports sentencing reform then follow it with (but so do many Democrats). This is entirely untrue, as almost no democrats outside of Corey Booker has attempted to broach the subject. Holder and Obama have made passing notice, but have not actually tried to affect reform as Paul has. Of course this completely leaves out the bit about legalizing medical weed which Paul has proposed, allowing states who legalize it to be free from federal interference (those horrible states rights you hate so much, and eliminating mandatory sentencing.)
YOU ARE FULL OF BOUTON'S
If I didn't know you were just an idiot, I'd call you a liar.
ter McGee
... in you dreams, queen of butthurt
The boutons method:
1.Present copypasta from a leftist site. Make some comment about evil republicans. Don't even attempt to provide your own analysis.
2.Get called out on how its bull with evidence, facts, and intellectual thought.
3.Post no response
4.Accuse said person of hating women, being butt hurt, or having just been slapped by your complete lack of a response.
5.Look up newest Salon article, try to find a thread it will fit in.
6.Wonder why even the leftists here think you are dumbass.
ter McGee
, you just like TB
You asshole Repugs elect asshole politicians. Refute that
We've known this for a long time. Slurping the Koch brothers is something Rand does, something Obama does and something Hillary will do also. Only one with any influence standing up to corrupt capitalism is Sanders. One guy is not enough.Time picks Rand Paul to fluff the Koch brothers, and Rand Paul delivers
the task of blurbing why the Koch brothers are God's gift to America fell to ... Sen. Rand Paul.
(Right now, somewhere in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker is once again crying into his soup.)
Sen. Paul, who would benefit greatly if the Koch brothers find him favorable and choose to shower him with their blessings, delivers the blowjob as only a true professional could.
What is underappreciated is their passion for freedom and their commitment to ideas. Unlike many crony capitalists who troll the halls of Congress looking for favors, the Kochs have consistently lobbied against special-interest politics. HOLY !
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...8Daily+Kos%29#
Boutons, of course my thoughts are developed from outside sources and If you look up a few ing posts you will see where I specifically refuted several of your facts. Haven't seen a counter argument yet., you just like TB
The difference here is that my "thoughts" are developed from a variety of sources that I have studied and used to make my own conclusions.
I will give you an example. I read an article a year or so ago on how raising the minimum wage could raise employment levels. I remember my micro-economic classes. A raise in the minimum wage, if binding, acts as a price floor causing an surplus of supply in the labor force.
Now I could of pulled a boutons and screamed what I thought I knew. Probably could have found and article to copy paste also. Instead I looked it up and researched it in several academic journals. Had to get a friend to help explain some of the calculus to me since I can't do much more than take a partial derivative. But I was able to understand the regression analysis and the points being made. I found out that I was wrong. A small increase can lead to an increase in employment in some markets, though it probably will be negative on the aggregate, but still not negative like micro theory suggests. I also found that other negative effects will happen. I found out why. I looked at the numbers.
Try challenging yourself sometime, instead of parroting Democrat talking points.
I can't. There are plenty of asshole politicians in both parties.You asshole Repugs elect asshole politicians. Refute that
ter McGee
Bernie Sanders is a washed-up union shill, and he pussied out of supporting a full audit of the Fed. Not even the socialists like him.
Sanders may be an oap but at least he's getting the right message out, can you name another politician in congress who does that? Has he pulled out of supporting the audit? Maybe he realises that teaming up with Rand on the audit will give others the wrong message..
Ron Paul, pre-retirement. Except he got the actual correct message out, not lib . Nowadays, it's Justin Amash, and that's pretty much it.
Ron Paul was just as senile as Sanders, if not more so
He was a cons utionalist and a libertarian - in other words, the sane middle ground between the lib s and the neocons.Ron Paul was just as senile as Sanders, if not more so
Meh, I'll take the sane ground left of the lib s.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
