I'm a registered Republican, but I'm far from a conservative. The past 10 years I've become very disenfranchised with all politics, but mainly the Republican party. While I consider myself more of a libertarian, I've come to believe that less gov't is impossible.

What has driven me towards voting Democrat (I voted for Obama both times) is that I detest right wingers who are religious nut jobs. I'm agnostic and I loathe Christianity as well as Islam.... and any religion that pushes their bullshit on me.

Last night I watched Bill Maher interview Rand Paul and I gotta say I was really impressed. Is this guy full of shit, or is he the real deal? Like I said, I've become disenfranchised... to the point where I didn't even vote in the past election.

But what Rand Paul was saying, I liked hearing.

Please give me sound reasons why I shouldn't believe this guy. He made too much sense. It's weird to hear a politician make that much sense.

11/16/2014 1:39:29 AM

I saw that interview as well. Rand Paul is cut from a different cloth from the rest of the Republican Party, which makes him interesting. I mean at least he tries to formulate his own thoughts and branches out slightly from the party line.

The problem with that interview is that, Rand is also a pretty savvy politician. Watch the interview again and take notice when Maher just cuts him off several times - it's because Rand is trying to hedge and toss word salads at Maher, beating around the bush (specifically I'm thinking climate change).

You can't listen to someone like Rand Paul, you need to look directly at his record.. He was for climate crion, until he became a senator from Kentucky, there is a history of known neo-confederates working in his campaign, look up the crazy shit he has said about a North American union, the Amero, and the NAFTA Superhighway. Go read about how shitty of a person he was in college and then read his comments in regards to BP over their oil spill. As a candidate he had some great ideas on limiting campaign funding if a company holds a federal contract, it completely evaporated after he became a senator.


Honestly I want to like Rand Paul, I still pull for him on a regular basis. But I would only vote for him after a lengthy campaign and all his rocks got turned over, I just don't trust him and his inner craziness. Go check out Brian Schweitzer, for a better alternative IMO.

11/16/2014 8:54:20 AM

I will never vote for anyone who has been on Alex Jones more than once. There's eccentricity, there's right wing media...and then there's lending credibility to a guy who promotes all the stuff salisburyboy believed.

11/16/2014 12:31:42 PM

he wants to severely cut funding for NASA. would not vote for him.

11/16/2014 12:42:04 PM

He also wants to do away with DHS.

11/16/2014 3:49:52 PM

if he means undo the post-9/11 changes that's a positive

11/16/2014 6:02:32 PM

DHS didn't exist before 9/11.

I wonder if he realized the Border Patrol and pretty much every Immigration-related action goes through DHS? That'll go over well with the base.

11/16/2014 6:50:47 PM

Libertarians are a weird mix of beliefs, they are staunchly ideological like republicans, but this ideology is at least tacitly based in reason.

Rand Paul knows his audience, so he's going to talk more about the things he knows mahers progressive audience likes, but he has a nutty streak too.

Realistically, libertarians are a step up from republicans mostly imo.

11/16/2014 6:53:39 PM

^^ which is why I asked, does he want to reorganize the agencies and roll back their increases powers or get rid of all of them?

11/16/2014 8:00:35 PM

I think he wants them to be autonomous again.

Some sub-components of DHS would have too much power though. It's a hell of a thing to control who flies in and out of the country. An agency like that definitely needs some oversight. And if allowed, TSA would go far beyond what is necessary.

11/17/2014 8:10:24 AM

fuck this guy

nuff said

11/17/2014 9:48:45 AM

Quote :

"He also wants to do away with DHS."

He also wants to bring back the holocaust.

11/17/2014 5:10:03 PM

Like every politician, he won't just answer a fucking question. Beats around the bush and gives a non-answer. Fuck him and every other politician.

11/18/2014 4:48:09 PM

If he (or anyone else) answered questions, they wouldn't be politicians, they'd be some person that never got elected to office.

Politics is a type of marketing. The more authentic a politician is, the less they have to invest in marketing. McDonalds doesn't make commercials that realistically portray their food; that would not help their sales. High quality restaurants, on the other hand, have relatively honest portrayals, but they still have marketing budgets and polished advertisements.

Politicians are the product. You are the intended consumer. In the realm of politics, you're the equivalent of the Amazon shopper that reads reviews and never buys on impulse. You're practically impervious to marketing techniques; you've become way too jaded and cynical to believe any pitch. Politicians don't bother trying to get your vote - one, because they probably couldn't, and two, even if they could, they'd alienate most of their base in the process.

11/18/2014 7:51:39 PM

Is the good (or really mediocre, admittedly) the enemy of of the great??? At what line do "principles" betray you from getting anything at all accomplished, especially in our current shitty political environment???

Rand Paul just voted against the USA FREEDOM act that would have taken some small steps against the NSA's bulk collection of data claiming "it wasn't strong enough."

As if a strong bill on NSA reform could actually pass the Senate (and even less so the House where the bill was previously watered down even more).

At what point are you hiding behind "this bill doesn't go far enough" so that you don't have a vote on your record that you'll have to defend later (specifically in 2016). No one wants to be known as being soft on terrorists, especially after several "conservatives" have already accused you of such a cardinal sin.

In short, Rand Paul is a fucking coward. Ambitious, but a fucking coward.

[Edited on November 18, 2014 at 9:53 PM. Reason : whiskey ups my "" usage by 110%]

11/18/2014 9:52:27 PM

The "USA FREEDOM" act has worse problems than not being "strong enough"; the name alone should raise some red flags. It extends some PATRIOT act provisions through 2017; currently it's set to expire in June of next year.

[Edited on November 19, 2014 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2014 10:28:59 PM

I read that those provisions do not need reauthorization, they would not expire

When does Rand Paul think there will be a chance at a better bill?

11/20/2014 6:40:04 AM

^yep, that's my understanding as well on the Patriot act. If the bill strengthened or extended the Patriot act in any way, then we would have seen republicans clamoring to show how tough they are on terrorist by voting for it. My guess is that's exactly what we'll see in 2015 when re authorization comes up. Oh, I'm sure Paul will make another meaningless showboating stand against it, similar to his drone speech, but no one will care except the rubes on the Campaign for Liberty listserve.

The FREEDOM act did extend the Patriot act, but it also neutered section 215 of it, by far one of the most egregious sections - the part where the FBI can spy on American citizens with really no reason or due process at all, and I think that section may be where the NSA is pulling some of its directive for bulk surveillance too.

The bill wasn't perfect but it was THE most significant step the Senate has ever taken. He should have been in there trying to strengthen it, compromising, and making political sausage. Instead he sat on the sidelines, took a "principled" stand and lobbed political grenades at people trying to actually pass legislation. It's much safer out there, 2016 is getting so close......

11/20/2014 7:34:59 AM

One sign you might be taking shit too seriously: you call your ideological opponents "rubes".

11/20/2014 7:17:41 PM

Well yea, I do take people spying on me kinda seriously.

But I don't really consider myself that ideologically different from small l libertarians, at least on a huge range of issues. I've said ITT that I pull for Paul on a regular basis.

I also know a C4L rube when I see one, because I WAS ONE. Take a look at this thread from when Ron Paul was doing ok in the republican primaries: http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=463741&page=29

By the end of that thread you can see me starting to get pissed. After Ron Paul dropped out of the race and started sending me emails to help out his "liberty-minded" friends, most of whom, with just a little research, turn out to be Christo-fascists (example Greg Brannon, etc).

Between that, educating myself on various topics and just generally getting more pragmatic that bullshit was easy to leave behind.

11/20/2014 9:20:22 PM

Rand Paul is as shady as they come:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-rand-paul-tried-to-lead-an-eye-doctors-rebellion/2015/02/01/010994da-9cd6-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

Sure, this is a hit piece by Washington Post, but it's a good hit piece.

2/2/2015 10:57:33 AM

The most troubling part of that article is that Kentucky licenses eye doctors without board certification.

2/2/2015 11:09:07 AM

I guess. I mean if you like licensing and certification and see them as a positive instead of the obstructionist and monopolistic tools they usually become.

I mean, we all know that no licensed doctor could ever be a quack and no certified contractor could ever be a thief.

Most of the time it's just a way for some group to collect a fee, or to limit the number of competitors in a certain segment of the market. If certification somehow managed to guarantee the competency of the doctor wouldn't it be required by medicare, medicaid, etc? As the article points out, they don't require it because it's pretty arbitrary. It's a cash grab for the "American Board of Ophthalmology" and if they can get states to require that practicing doctors in that state have to take it they can charge more.

2/2/2015 11:27:07 AM

I'm ok with a group of young doctors getting together to figure out a better way to do something - go for it. But when that "better way" includes certifying yourself based on an exam that you created, and the certifying board comprised mostly of your close relatives? Come on.

2/2/2015 11:40:47 AM

Out of curiosity, how do you think the other board started? I mean, I guess it might have been to keep con men from passing themselves off as legit surgeons, but I bet it was more likely to try and protect their own turf.

Shit man, how do you think the NC ABC board operates, or any other attempt by an industry to self regulate to limit membership?

I'm not saying Paul is some kind of savior, but he was pretty clearly trying to fight an establishment that he felt was unnecessary and possibly corrupt. It's pretty clear that his issue was that he felt they were requiring re-certification just to extract more money from doctors.

2/2/2015 11:49:04 AM

My view on medical boards and certification? I never viewed them as a money-making venture. Maybe they are, but I always thought that re-certification was a way to force doctors to keep up with the latest in medical technology and newest procedures.

2/2/2015 11:53:40 AM

It's certainly one of the possible reasons. I mean, one would hope that doctors would want to keep up with that stuff, and most probably do (of course there are exceptions, especially among those who have been doing something the same way for a while). However, testing once a decade is pretty clearly not going to be a very effective way to do that, and allowing people to be grandfathered in also makes it clear that that's not your only intention if it's even your true intention.

You can certainly trot out a public safety argument, but ultimately licensing is all about fee collection for the group doing the licensing. And any good licensing agency worth its salt will try like hell to get laws on the books to mandate that people be licensed by them before they can practice, whether that's African hair braiding, performing cataract surgery, or selling booze.

2/2/2015 12:01:29 PM

Quote :

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued Monday that debate over whether to allow parents more choice in the vaccination of their children was a matter of "freedom," citing personal knowledge of kids "who wound up with profound mental disorders" after receiving immunizations for diseases like Hepatitis B and measles."

I know the full quote is a little more nuanced (arguing blood/sexually transmitted Vaccines can be spaced out later in life), but the average Paul voter isn't going to pick up on that nuance. They just hear "Freedumb" and "don't trust the CDC" etc. SMH

2/3/2015 6:57:44 AM

I know plenty people who spaced out their vaccines, i don't think anyone was ever suggesting that you shouldn't be able to do that.

Paul was sounding fine until he said "vaccines cause crippling disabilities" which made the implication that Paul was saying it's reasonable for someone to choose not to vaccinate on this basis.

I don't blame him for the "i defer to freedom" stuff because the media would swing the opposite way and say Paul believes in forcing people to be vaccinated against their will. Politicians have to walk a fine line, unfortunately.

2/3/2015 7:41:08 AM

I don't understand why Republicans like Paul and Christie are pandering to the anti-vaxxer morons. I thought only hippie California liberals don't vaccinate their kids.

2/3/2015 9:03:01 AM

Because it's the "not-Obama" opinion. You can't hope to win the redneck\hick vote in a primary if you arent not Obama on every single thing.

2/3/2015 9:17:03 AM

As one of the few actual Republicans on this board, this is a serious cause for concern and legitimate basis for other candidates to challenge an otherwise appealing candidate:

Quote :

"I will never vote for anyone who has been on Alex Jones more than once. There's eccentricity, there's right wing media...and then there's lending credibility to a guy who promotes all the stuff salisburyboy believed."

2/3/2015 9:46:27 AM

the battle lines have been draw, the conservative position is that vaccinations are not needed
Laura Ingraham’s astonishing ignorance: “I just don’t think [measles] is that big of a deal”
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/02/laura_ingrahams_astonishing_ignorance_i_just_dont_think_measles_is_that_big_of_a_deal/

I don't know why they are doubling down on this, not vaccinating children has been a popular liberal mommy-blogger thing that they could have made fun of. I guess to be a good conservative these days you have to be anti-obama on every-single-fucking-thing

2/3/2015 9:53:01 AM

Its crazy. Absolutely crazy.

Are people really that anti-Obama that they can't even be reasonable any more?

2/3/2015 11:53:49 AM

What were Paul's thoughts on Ebola?

2/3/2015 12:31:14 PM

i think he exaggerated the dangers and criticized Obama's response but was also opposed to using forced quarantine too quickly

2/3/2015 12:34:09 PM

He's no Chris Christie then.

I guess that's a plus.

2/3/2015 12:41:42 PM

WE WOULDN'T HAVE NONE OF THESE DAMN DISEASES IF WE DIDN'T LET ALL THE ILLEGALS IN THIS COUNTRY IN THE FIRST PLACE

I seriously just read that somewhere.

2/3/2015 4:19:47 PM

^

Quote :

""I don't think there is any health care professional who has examined the facts who could honestly say that Americans have not died because the disease is brought into America by illegal aliens who are not properly health care screened, as lawful immigrants are," Brooks said. "Unfortunately, our kids just aren't prepared for a lot of the diseases that come in and are borne by illegal aliens.""

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)

The only thing spreading faster than measles is stupidity in the GOP

2/3/2015 6:52:09 PM

Again, not all conservatives believe that it is ok not to vaccinate. A majority of my coworkers are conservatives, and they all chose to vaccinate their children, including me.

I'm all for making sure that the non-vaccinated kids stay out of doctors offices, potentially infecting someone who hasn't had a chance to get their vaccines yet.

2/3/2015 9:02:55 PM

Quote :

"Rand Paul Is Not A Libertarian On April 7, Rand Paul — the junior Senator from Kentucky — will announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Paul is pitching himself as “a different kind of Republican leader.” Media reports tout his appeal to “young conservatives and libertarians.” Libertarians, in general, are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, with a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. His father, Ron Paul is a “libertarian cult figure” who had tremendous appeal to young Republicans. Rand Paul is clearly marketing himself as the heir apparent to those supporters — the one candidate with a chance of expanding the Republican base. But is Rand Paul a libertarian? He certainly likes to talk like a libertarian. Let’s take a look at where he stands on the issues. Rand Paul Opposes Abortion Rights, Sponsored Legislation That Would Make All Abortions Illegal Rand Paul vehemently opposes abortion rights. He is a sponsor of “The Life at Conception Act,” a radical piece of legislation associated with the personhood movement that says “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward.” The purpose of the legislation is to outlaw all abortion. Paul talked about his bill extensively in a fundraising video for the National Pro-Life Alliance: Paul has a zero percent from Planned Parenthood and a perfect rating from the National Right To Life Counsel. Rand Paul Opposes Same-Sex Marriage, Finds It ‘Offensive’ Rand Paul is a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage. Paul said the idea of a marriage between a same-sex couples “offends myself and a lot of people.” He also warned against the Republican party shifting its position on marriage equality. “If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, ‘You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,’ they’re… gonna stay home,” Paul said in an interview with the New York Times. Paul warned that deviating from “traditional” marriage could lead to people marrying animals. “It is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further,” Paul told Glenn Back. “Does it have to be humans? You know, I mean. So there really are—the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation?” (Paul later said he was being sarcastic.) He also mocked Obama’s decision to support marriage equality. “Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer,” Paul quipped. Paul’s “joke” was condemned as out-of-bounds by anti-gay activist Tony Perkins. Paul dipped his toe into libertarian thinking by saying that marriage should be “left to the states.” Paul admitted, however, that he only holds this view because he thinks it’s the best way to keep marriage equality out of most states. “I think right now if we say we’re only going to [have] a federally mandated one man, one woman marriage, we’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now. If we’re to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people,” Paul told CBN’s David Brody. Paul received a 100 percent rating from the Family Research Council, one of the nation’s most prominent social conservative organizations. Rand Paul Supports A Massive Increase In Defense Spending Not so long ago, Rand Paul broke from Republican orthodoxy on defense spending and supported substantial cuts. A budget he introduced in 2011 called for a $164 billion cut in defense spending by 2016. But last month Paul abruptly reversed positions and proposed “a nearly $190 billion infusion to the defense budget over the next two years—a roughly 16 percent increase.” TIME called Paul’s switch a “stunning reversal.” Rand Paul Supports Extensive Use Of Drones At Home And Abroad In 2013, Rand Paul staged a 13-hour filibuster against CIA Director nominee John Brennan, demanding answers on the use of drones by the United States government. But Paul’s filibuster, which drew plaudits from civil libertarians, was much less than met the eye. Paul was only protesting the use of drones in the very limited scenario of “a targeted killing ordered against a U.S. citizen on American soil” — something that has never happened. Paul introduced legislation that would prevent the use of a drone against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without a warrant, which the Pentagon says would be prohibited by existing law. But Paul supports the use of drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. He also supports the use of drones on U.S. soil as part of a border security effort. Rand Paul Opposes The Legalization Of Marijuana Rand Paul’s position on drugs like marijuana is “not to legalize them.” He stresses that smoking marijuana is “a bad thing to do.” Paul’s view is that instead of legalization, penalties for drug use and possession should be reduced. Reason, a libertarian magazine, is not impressed: “He wants to keep everything illegal, but institute gentler penalties. That’s not remotely libertarian.” Paul did recently support a bill that would assure states that legalize medical marijuana that patients would not be federally prosecuted. Rand Paul Suggested Putting People In Prison For Listening To ‘Radical Political Speeches’ In a 2011 interview with Sean Hannity, Paul said he opposed some kinds of racial profiling but supported the profiling, deportation, and even imprisonment of people the government determined were listening to “radical political speeches.” Perhaps Rand Paul’s most purely libertarian position is his views on the NSA — Paul supports the complete dismantling of the domestic surveillance apparatus. (He also forcefully opposed renewal of the PATRIOT Act.) But when it came time to vote for a NSA reform plan supported by Democrats and Republicans with similar views, Paul voted against it, arguing it didn’t go far enough. Paul’s vote was criticized by civil libertarians who were banking on his support. So is Rand Paul, as one supporter told the New York Times, “to the libertarian movement what Pearl Jam is to rock”? Take it from Rand Paul: “I’m not a libertarian.”"

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/06/3643093/rand-paul-not-libertarian/

4/6/2015 2:31:52 PM

I don't think Rand claims he's a libertarian does he? He sort-of insinuates it based on his association with his dad and the way he spells his name (Randall), but he's always branded himself as a regular Republican to my knowledge.

4/6/2015 2:53:49 PM

To my knowledge, he's always been branded a Conservative Libertarian.

4/7/2015 9:06:44 AM

He starts to run for president.

4/7/2015 9:58:39 AM

One more for the clown car. Rand is in LOL.

4/7/2015 2:15:23 PM

He picked a good time. Just the day after Duke won the title.

4/7/2015 2:17:44 PM

He caters to the libertarian crowd when he can.

Quote :

"Like his father, the son also favors notions of limited government. "Libertarian would be a good description," Rand Paul told CNN, "because libertarians believe in freedom in all aspects of your life – your economic life as well as your social life as well as your personal life.""

Quote :

"He told a Harvard audience that he’s “libertarian-ish” and wants “a libertarian influence in the Republican Party.” He told Sean Hannity on Fox that he’s happy to be called “either libertarian conservative or constitutional conservative.”"

4/7/2015 2:21:23 PM

if he has a constitution in one hand, and the bill of rights in the other, how can he hold his bible and gun?

4/7/2015 2:23:18 PM

So I think we're on day 2 of the campaign now? When is he going to get hit with a clip of Alex Jones saying something crazy and some intrepid reporter asking him about his long association with Jones?

And... a quick google search reveals MSNBC has already confronted an aide about this:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/04/07/msnbcs-krystal-ball-presses-former-rand-paul-ai/203193

4/9/2015 6:38:06 AM

Don't worry; Clinton will give them another fire to put out soon enough.

...and that's the way the news will be for more than a year.

4/9/2015 6:45:27 AM