Rand Paul Announcing Run For The Presidential Nomination

[ChristianPatriot]

Two full pages of civil discussion with no name calling or ego-filled rants?!

Refreshing.

 

[SSGSAD]

Rand is leaps and bounds better than Cruz. Glad there's a better option now!

And Bush, and H.

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't really see that as a fair message comparison.

Or a wrong one.

I heard his speech and it was pretty good. Hit all the high points without forgetting that the world ain't all roses and kittens. Certainly a vastly better speech than what Cruz gave. Made it abundantly clear that he was there for everyone, not just the so-cons. Will be interesting to hear what the talking heads have to say, since he differs from the run of the mill republican on many matters. He did good and I can see this speech appealing to a broad cross section.

 

[jamil]

Watching the speech, he takes Conservatarian values and makes them sound Liberal. That's a good thing. You could almost be fooled which party he's running for.

I think he has the most potential to bring out the voters. I hope his clouding of the divisiveness helps with the young vote, too. I'd hate to see someone like Jeb Bush get the nomination over Paul

Interesting. I was just thinking the opposite, that he was taking traditional "social justice" issues and making them presentable to Conservatarians. I'm down with that.

 

[avboiler11]

Rand can win.

Will he win? Dunno...lots of time between now and the GOP convention next year for him to put his boot in his mouth, have a Rick Perry moment onstage, get politically outmaneuvered by "the establishment" and/or underminded by the far right base, etc. However, in the last 48 hours media has already started spooling up articles and op-eds ranging from neutral to negative about him, and that will only accelerate going forward. That right there tells me that he is perceived as a "threat"...a threat capable of winning votes in a General Election that Republicans have struggled with of late, ie. youth and minority.

I'm kinda looking forward to how he gets hit...but perhaps more importantly, how he 1. takes the hits and 2. punches back.

Best announced or presumed candidate out there right now with the possible exception of Jim Webb, IMO.

 

[jamil]

Or a wrong one.

I heard his speech and it was pretty good. Hit all the high points without forgetting that the world ain't all roses and kittens. Certainly a vastly better speech than what Cruz gave. Made it abundantly clear that he was there for everyone, not just the so-cons. Will be interesting to hear what the talking heads have to say, since he differs from the run of the mill republican on many matters. He did good and I can see this speech appealing to a broad cross section.

No, it's a wrong comparison. Edward's Two America's speech was the front of a socialist solution. Rand turned that around and made an appeal for a free market solution. Similar, but substantially incorrect to compare them without noting the difference.

As for Paul's appealing to a wider voter base, I completely agree. He definitely gives minorities and young people another choice besides Democrats. He gives libertarian minded conservatives a much better choice than Cruz.

But since the media is aware of his potential appeal to minorities, I'm sure they'll find a narrative to make him a bigot.

 

[Dead Duck]

Two full pages of civil discussion with no name calling or ego-filled rants?!

Refreshing.

Dick!

 

[mrjarrell]

No, it's a wrong comparison. Edward's Two America's speech was the front of a socialist solution. Rand turned that around and made an appeal for a free market solution. Similar, but substantially incorrect to compare them without noting the difference.

As for Paul's appealing to a wider voter base, I completely agree. He definitely gives minorities and young people another choice besides Democrats. He gives libertarian minded conservatives a much better choice than Cruz.

But since the media is aware of his potential appeal to minorities, I'm sure they'll find a narrative to make him a bigot.

Going to be hard to paint him as a racial bigot, with his fairly outspoken record on social justice.
Agree that his comparison to Edwards is wrong, but not that he is wrong in his take on the matter, using Dr. King's comparison. I think that will resonate with a large segment of people.

 

[jamil]

It's times like this, I really hate hsaving internet service with data limits. Im going to try to remeber to come back and watch this later.

I must have missed this post. I tried to find a transcript of the speech but my googlefoo is lacking today. If anyone has the link, that would be great. I usually get more from reading that hearing.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Interesting. I was just thinking the opposite, that he was taking traditional "social justice" issues and making them presentable to Conservatarians. I'm down with that.

My progressive radar comes up when I hear the words "social justice". By what do you mean by traditional "social justice"?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

My progressive radar comes up when I hear the words "social justice". By what do you mean by traditional "social justice"?

Eeeew, I missed that part. Only caught the last half. "Social justice" is an immediate turn-off for me.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Critics are already attacking him over this shirt choice:

Apparently it should be "Jewish-Americans"? Sod that. No one says that. "Jew" is not a derogatory term like these idiots want to believe.

If Rand included every demographic except Ukrainians for Rand, the DNC would seize on it and the media would push it obediently. No shock.

In the meantime, Clinton deleted e-mails that were under subpoena. I guess the media knows what's important.

 

[MisterChester]

A few weeks ago Rand Paul said to a bunch of pastors "The first amendment says keep government out of religion, it doesn't say keep religion out of government."

This irks me, as I believe government should stay out of religion AND religion should stay out of government. They are two entities that should not cross paths, IMO. Stay out of my government if you don't pay taxes.

 

[jamil]

My progressive radar comes up when I hear the words "social justice". By what do you mean by traditional "social justice"?

Eeeew, I missed that part. Only caught the last half. "Social justice" is an immediate turn-off for me.

Hold on. Don't jump the ship before you get on. It was my term. I don't recall him actually invoking the words "social justice". But if he did, it was clear that his idea of "social justice" had a market solution.

In his example he spoke of the two Americas and "ecumenically" worded conservative solutions as the remedy. I'm sure he has MSNBC frothing at the mouth in sheer anger that he would dare think to address poverty by creating opportunities for success. They'll be sure to decode the "real" message for the collective.

But also there's the conservative take on it, where things like poverty don't get discussed much in conservative circles other than people deriding the poor for being too lazy for success. I think Paul made the two-Americas bit, which he used to draw more social justice minded folks, more pallatable for conservatives. But again suggesting conservative solutions.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Alright, that's a bit better. Libertarianism and modern "social justice warriors" don't really mesh. It would surprise me if he had an SJW mindset (with my definition of SJW).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hold on. Don't jump the ship before you get on. It was my term. I don't recall him actually invoking the words "social justice". But if he did, it was clear that his idea of "social justice" had a market solution.

In his example he spoke of the two Americas and "ecumenically" worded conservative solutions as the remedy. I'm sure he has MSNBC frothing at the mouth in sheer anger that he would dare think to address poverty by creating opportunities for success. They'll be sure to decode the "real" message for the collective.

But also there's the conservative take on it, where things like poverty don't get discussed much in conservative circles other than people deriding the poor for being too lazy for success. I think Paul made the two-Americas bit, which he used to draw more social justice minded folks, more pallatable for conservatives. But again suggesting conservative solutions.

That's good. I'm intrigued by the prospect of taking liberal terms and actually articulating a market based, conservative solution to them.

 

[THE BIG SITT]

Hypothetical time! How would R. Paul as president and the current makeup of Congress affect the NFA/BATF?

 

[ATM]

A few weeks ago Rand Paul said to a bunch of pastors "The first amendment says keep government out of religion, it doesn't say keep religion out of government."

This irks me, as I believe government should stay out of religion AND religion should stay out of government. They are two entities that should not cross paths, IMO.

Despite your personal beliefs, he was correct. Why would that irk you?

Stay out of my government if you don't pay taxes.

Why? Does having your property stolen make you somehow better at stealing the property of others?

 

[printcraft]

Despite your personal beliefs, he was correct. Why would that irk you?

This ^^^^^^^^^^
The true and literal reading of the First Amendment......
the "interpretation" living document, judges discretion, nonsense has gotten out of control.

 

[jamil]

A few weeks ago Rand Paul said to a bunch of pastors "The first amendment says keep government out of religion, it doesn't say keep religion out of government."

This irks me, as I believe government should stay out of religion AND religion should stay out of government. They are two entities that should not cross paths, IMO. Stay out of my government if you don't pay taxes.

yeah, whatever.

I don't know what Paul meant by that. He can't mean that government people can establish religion as a part of government--there can't be a department of tithes and offerings--because that is clearly unconstitutional. It may be that he's talking about people in government expressing themselves.

This is how I think of it. It doesn't bother me if Congress has prayer before it meets. I don't care if there's a prayer breakfast or not. I don't care if a Christian president puts a nativity scene on the north lawn. I don't care if a Jewish defense secretary wears a beanie. I don't care if a Hindu IRS tax auditor has a Ganesh statue on her desk. I don't mind if the Christian Secretary of State has a picture of Jesus on his wall. I don't mind if religious people act like they are religious while on the job as long as it doesn't interfere with their work, and they don't harass other people with it, and they don't proselytize, and they don't put it in my face.

The problem is, we care too much about that. If we cared less, we would all have more freedom to be who we are. If we had thicker skins, and weren't so damned touchy, we all could do much more of what we want. But no, all people get all ape**** over religion and who's wearing what, and ****ing Charlie Brown Christmas! OMG! Fire that ***** who dares show that in public school! WTF? It's Charlie ****ing BROWN people? Who cares?

People, religious and not, scream bloody hell if someone else's chunk of belief is represented by actual people actually doing stuff. Ohh, we must stamp out religion! It's ruining our Utopia! But it's not just athiests or agnostics, it's everyone. All religions and no religions want to boohoo over other people's beliefs.

Just stop giving a **** that someone else is actively believing something you don't. Okay?






Sorry for the rant. I'm okay now.