What Is Going On With Rand Paul? Do they have pictures or something???

[RobertNashville]

What the heck is up with Rand Paul?

 

While he backed off of the Gang of Eight Amnesty plan he seems intent on rewarding 20Million or more criminals with amnesty and now he seems solidly on the Lamar Alexander reelection bandwagon...has he lost his mind or has he just hid some of his true convictions (or lack of) from us???

 

Aside from his voice being used in  Lamar's "I saved fishing below the dams" commercial now he's come out and said he hops that Lamar doesn't have to face any primary challengers.

 

Is there some virus going around Washington DC that turns Republicans with convictions into to RINO hacks?

[Chucktshoes]

Is there some virus going around Washington DC that turns Republicans with convictions into to RINO hacks?

Money.

[RobertNashville]

Money.

So then I guess he was never really the solid conservative/libertarian he has portrayed himself to be...that's sad.

[MacGyver]

Money.  Power.  Sex.

 

An old boss of mine told me once that when you're investigating a case and can't seem to find an angle.  Work the above list.  20 years later, I can affirm that he was right.

 

We really need term limits in a bad way!  Once they get to you, you're nothing but a puppet

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not necessarily. First, you have to have the majority in the Senate. Then you have to get that majority

voting consistently in the direction you want. I don't know his long game any more than you do, but I

think his short game is to gain a majority, even if filled with Alexander types. You have to get back to

square one before you can take it up a notch.

[MacGyver]

Not necessarily. First, you have to have the majority in the Senate. Then you have to get that majority
voting consistently in the direction you want. I don't know his long game any more than you do, but I
think his short game is to gain a majority, even if filled with Alexander types. You have to get back to
square one before you can take it up a notch.

I hope you're right, Mark.

[Raoul]

Expediency. Politicians aren't like the rest of us. If you don't believe me just look at their retirement package.

That's not to say that Rand is evil, it's just that the system awards a person for "getting along".

[RobertNashville]

Not necessarily. First, you have to have the majority in the Senate. Then you have to get that majority

voting consistently in the direction you want. I don't know his long game any more than you do, but I

think his short game is to gain a majority, even if filled with Alexander types. You have to get back to

square one before you can take it up a notch.

The only thing this country needs less than a Senate or House full of Alexander types is a Senate or House full of Pelosie types (I'm not all that sure there is a measurable difference).

 

Even with a minority in the Senate the Republicans could effect some positive change if we didn't have so many Alexander types already there...having a majority of Alexander types won't change their voting; if they can't vote the right way now they never will.

 

If that's his short game it's a lousy one and one that can only kill what's left of our country more quickly.  I will not vote for the man (should he ever run for an office I will be voting in) nor will I vote for Alexander even if he is the Republican nominee.

Edited July 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest nra37922]

All about

 

1)  Getting in power

2)  Growing that power

3)  Staying in power

 

Smoke and mirrors, shell game or whatever they have to do to obtain 1 - 3 above.  Just don't look behind the curtain!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I hope you're right, Mark.

I do, too, but it is square one that has to be there. Paul could have been corrupted, but politics is strange

at best, in all circles. When you have ideology shifts like the big surge in RINO'ism(?) that happened during

and after Reagan, how do you get it back? There has to be a fundamental shift in our political class to get

anything back to what could be considered normal. that will unfortunately take a huge shaking event to

accomplish, and it will be painful, but I doubt Paul has been corrupted like some think. Cruz is also around

and his ideology appears to be incorruptable. Someone raised him right. I think Paul was raised right, also.

He is playing games with the ruling elite, I think.

 

Unless something really strange happens with Rubio, he is done for to go up the political ladder, but Paul

and Cruz are becoming leaders. We tend to look at the latest event and take it to mean everything. This has

proven itself to be flawed so many times.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The only thing this country needs less than a Senate or House full of Alexander types is a Senate or House full of Pelosie types (I'm not all that sure there is a measurable difference).

 

Even with a minority in the Senate the Republicans could effect some positive change if we didn't have so many Alexander types already there...having a majority of Alexander types won't change their voting; if they can't vote the right way now they never will.

 

If that's his short game it's a lousy one and one that can only kill what's left of our country more quickly.  I will not vote for the man (should he ever run for an office I will be voting in) nor will I vote for Alexander even if he is the Republican nominee.

If I said a house full of RINO's, that's not what I meant, Robert. There as to be a majority party. It has to be weeded out

from time to time. The Cruz types are trying to weed them out. Jim Demint is trying to do it also, at Heritage Foundation.

 

Thinking all is lost, all the time, will concede the battle for everyone. There are people trying to primary, and some

succeeding at it. there are even resources in TN trying to get Alexander primaried, but it is an extremely uphill battle.

It's that square one thing. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[RobertNashville]

If Paul is now the leader he is leading someplace I will not go.

 

Being a proponent of any sort of amnesty for 20 million (and likely more) criminals is a position I can not and never will reconcile with; it is an anti-American as burning the flag or pissing on Washington's grave.

 

Supporting such a loathsome, RINO political hack as Alexander shows me Paul is just as out of touch...just as loathsome as Alexander. 

 

When the time comes I'll be sending money to Paul's opponent(s)...he needs to go.

[RichardR]

Actually I believe it is more of a libertine sort of "everyone should be free to live where ever they choose" mentality than any sort of corruption.

As a libertarian myself I've actually argued against this in libertarian circles, while I agree on principle, reality is not theory & unregulated immigration is great in theory at an individual level, but in reality it is historically very destructive to a society when tens of millions migrate from one land to another in a short period of time.

I understand why Rand voted the way he voted, but he's looking at individual trees & not looking at the forest as a whole.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There is a fine line between RINO'ism and liberalism. One can occasionally be made to act in the country's

best interests. The other is a losing game. We have a chance with weeding out the Rockefeller mentality, but

not liberalism. When we can get the libertarian, constitutionalist roots back in the Republican Party, or another

party come out of the ashes of it, we have a chance. Otherwise, the way conservative/libertarians think and

play by the rules, we have no chance. To defeat the enemy, and that enemy is liberalism/communism, we will

have to play by some dirty and devious rules. Don't kid yourself into thinking this liberalism was won fair and

square, either.

 

It was won by a lot of down and dirty lies and promises, and concessions from Rockefeller Republicans. We

give up way too early and concede to the media and political correctness every time.

 

We(conservatives) are susceptible to so much altruism and lies because we refuse to answer it with real truth.

the Democrats and RINO's have eaten up and digested so much crap and thrown it onto us by calling it something

it isn't, but giving it a peachy keen name that it becomes self breeding down the road. We then get it repackaged

by the media and end up accepting it. So many folks don't even pay attention to the creep and crawl, but just get

a bad attitude., Try doing that with your family. You had better be comparing it, daily, to your family because they are.

they just have a great repackager and a lot of the electorate don't even pay attention.

 

What's guilt? An emotion. Is that the way you want to ruin the larger family, our nation?

[RobertNashville]

Actually I believe it is more of a libertine sort of "everyone should be free to live where ever they choose" mentality than any sort of corruption.

As a libertarian myself I've actually argued against this in libertarian circles, while I agree on principle, reality is not theory & unregulated immigration is great in theory at an individual level, but in reality it is historically very destructive to a society when tens of millions migrate from one land to another in a short period of time.

I understand why Rand voted the way he voted, but he's looking at individual trees & not looking at the forest as a whole.

There is no effective difference between "everyone should be free to live where ever they choose" and "we don't need to have things like states and countries.

 

A country that has no true border, no true national language and no true culture is not a real country at all; it's just a region on a map with a meaningless name.  I can think of nothing more anti-American than not enforcing our borders and rewarding those who who violate our borders and I don't really care what political expediency is behind it.

[mav]

I am not throwing out Rand yet.  He is way better than others the media has mentioned as potential candidates, and somewhat equal with Cruz.  I believe what we are seeing with Rand is political posturing.  He could do like his father and promote his inflexible principles, and the end result would be about the same; he would lose easily.

 

Unless it is Cruz or Paul, I will not be voting GOP for 2016.  To hell with the rest of them.

[kieefer]

I am not throwing out Rand yet.  He is way better than others the media has mentioned as potential candidates, and somewhat equal with Cruz.  I believe what we are seeing with Rand is political posturing.  He could do like his father and promote his inflexible principles, and the end result would be about the same; he would lose easily.

 

Unless it is Cruz or Paul, I will not be voting GOP for 2016.  To hell with the rest of them.

 

I'm also on the wire but his support for Lamar is not encouraging, maybe he knows a replacement may be worse but you can bet Lamar will be using Rand for all he's worth to get re-elected.

 

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/30/rand-paul-says-very-supportive-alexander/?news

 

+1 for Ted Cruz.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Its puzzling about Alexander, except if he makes friends with Alexander maybe he can swing that RINO tilting the right direction in the wind on some future votes. Hard to get along in the senate with only one friend (Cruz). Just a guess.

 

Open Borders is the only platform of the libertarian platform with which I disagree, but that is straight-down-the-line libertarianism. Read Heinlein. Even Heinlein was an open-borders advocate, even though Heinlein was a proto-libertarian and one of the staunchest red-scare anti-commies. Without a welfare state, Open Borders might even be practical, if the borders are open both ways. But if poor nations have laws restricting USA citizens from moving in and buying property and setting up shop, but the USA has open borders with lots of free stuff going the other way, then it will draw po folks like osmosis thru a one-way membrane.

 

Not defending Paul though. Time will tell. If Open Borders could be accepted along with dismantling the big gov and welfare state, it might be a bargain worth taking, but just one guy can't guarantee such a tradeoff. More likely get Open Borders PLUS a welfare state growing like cancer.

[tnguy]

Actually I believe it is more of a libertine sort of "everyone should be free to live where ever they choose" mentality than any sort of corruption.

As a libertarian myself I've actually argued against this in libertarian circles, while I agree on principle, reality is not theory & unregulated immigration is great in theory at an individual level, but in reality it is historically very destructive to a society when tens of millions migrate from one land to another in a short period of time.

I understand why Rand voted the way he voted, but he's looking at individual trees & not looking at the forest as a whole.

 

Very much this. The problem with that stance is that it's putting the cart before the horse. Sure, ideally immigration would be much simpler, free-er and easier but first you need to remove most of the idiocy that will cause impoverished, uneducated people to flood in and strain the welfare state past breaking point. (Though maybe that's what is needed. We don't seem to be having any luck rolling it back).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I hope you're right, Mark.

I do, too.

[RobertNashville]

I am not throwing out Rand yet.  He is way better than others the media has mentioned as potential candidates, and somewhat equal with Cruz.  I believe what we are seeing with Rand is political posturing.  He could do like his father and promote his inflexible principles, and the end result would be about the same; he would lose easily.

 

Unless it is Cruz or Paul, I will not be voting GOP for 2016.  To hell with the rest of them.

If Rand is the best we can do then there is no hope for a turnaround (not that I have any hope left anyway).

 

Any politician that wants to hand out amnesty to millions of criminals and is willing to cuddle up with the likes of Alexander is a politician we don't need; we might just as well vote for Hillary in 2016 (or whoever the Democrats run) or not bother.

 

I was beat over the head here last year about how "Romney" wasn't good enough; am I now supposed to support another political hack just because he's more palatable than Romney and isn't Hillery?

[Chucktshoes]

Robert, for the most part I like Rand. I have become uneasy with some of his positions as of late, but I am generally favorably inclined towards him. That being said, I don't think you should vote for him if you don't want to. I still maintain that no matter how unlikely your choice is to win, the only vote wasted is the vote cast not from conscience but fear. We should all be voting FOR someone, not AGAINST someone.

[JayC]

Mike Lee?  Jason Chaffetz?  Allen West?  Justin Amash?  Jimmy Duncan of TN?  Raul Labrador of ID?  None of these are on your list?

 

I think any one of them would be head and shoulders above Christy let alone Hillary as President ;)

 

I am not throwing out Rand yet.  He is way better than others the media has mentioned as potential candidates, and somewhat equal with Cruz.  I believe what we are seeing with Rand is political posturing.  He could do like his father and promote his inflexible principles, and the end result would be about the same; he would lose easily.

 

Unless it is Cruz or Paul, I will not be voting GOP for 2016.  To hell with the rest of them.

 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What do you order at the restaurant, when informed that the refigeration went out and everything is spoiled? Ye olde lesser of evils...

[JayC]

I'm a pretty hard core libertarian (as many of you already know), and I'm not completely onboard with the open borders plan that some call for...  but it's so far down the list on things I'm really worried about...  and almost everything higher than open borders Rand Paul is right inline with my thinking....  

 

I'm not sure you're ever going to find a politician that will agree 100% with you, I'm happy if we're in agreement on my top 5 concerns ;)