Posted on 08/15/2015 9:55:22 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Paul tried to be all things to all voters, and ended up being litte to any of them.
He lacked substance.
Trump also said he had it up to here with Rand holding his hand up mid chest. I think that was a reference to his size
Mitch: “Stick with me kid and you’ll go far!”
Rand: “Really?”
Mitch: “Yeah. You’ll go far (far out of politics, heh heh)”
Exactly.
Mitch is so disliked now that what may have looked like a smart move when Paul allied himself with McConnell has now come back to haunt him.
When Rand spoke at the debate, he spoke of his past record, and then launched into a kidfight with fatman Christie.
I already knew of Rand’s record. If you are running for President, it AIN’T what you DID, it’s what you ARE GOING TO DO, and he said nothing.
Rand Paul is a flake.
Interesting. Lefty rag cites another lefty rag build up and a Trump “aggresive punch” put down.
How do you lose potheads when states are legalizing pot? Guess they are too mellowed out to care.
The candidate everyone thought could change the Republican Party is completely collapsings/bThe candidate Democrats and their media shills hoped could wreck the Republican Party is completely collapsing
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
In my view, libertarians are people who try to base their entire political philosophy on one idea, i.e., government should never do anything. It is almost an anarchist position, and therefore is more of a “stance” than a workable philosophy. It is an attempt to escape responsibility for anything by never doing anything. But NOT doing anything also has results, and some of those results are not good.
RuPaul, Junior ? Whut are these folks smokin’ ?
Too short!
Rand Paul is 5'7" in his high heels...and weighs 157.
With some rare exceptions, American voters historically have viewed tall presidential candidates as better suited for leadership than shorties.
Ann Coulter said that Rand and her iPod are the same height!
Leni
It has nothing to do with McConnell (What is he the source of all evil? GMAFB already), Rand quite frankly is a poor politician, and his more libtardtarian policies are out of step with most Republicans.
“And I noticed Trump tossed the word “Israel” into his criticism of Paul. Watch the pandering, Donald. We like you because you’re NOT like most other pols.”
That’s not why Trump brought up Israel. He wasn’t pandering, he was attacking. You missed the subtle point he was making against Paul. Rand and his old man Ron Paul are very anti Israel and both border on anti Semitic, Ron more overtly so than Rand. But the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Trump, on the other hand, is a big backer of Israel. That’s why Trump brought it up. It was another dig into Paul’s soft underbelly of being out of step on an issue of some importance to most of the conservative base, namely being pro Israel, as The Donald is, and Rand isn’t.
Some
“In my view, libertarians are people who try to base their entire political philosophy on one idea, i.e., government should never do anything. It is almost an anarchist position, and therefore is more of a “stance” than a workable philosophy. It is an attempt to escape responsibility for anything by never doing anything. But NOT doing anything also has results, and some of those results are not good.”
Excellent. Succinct and intellectually well put.
The word “some” at the end of # 55 is a stand alone goof, signifying nothing, lol.
Ah, so the Paul’s don’t tow the AIPAC/PNAC party line, therefore they’re antisemitic? Duly noted.
I would say Rand sucking up to McConnell in the last primary certainly hurt him with the conservative base, but its Rand going wobbly on a whole host of things that has damaged his credibility with the GOP base. It's death by a thousand cuts. He got elected to the Senate as an anti-establishment "Tea Party" candidate and quickly because a mainstream Washington pol. He still pushes paleo-libertarian policies, but wraps them up in nice center-right Republican talking points to endear himself to the mainstream. The act is wearing thin. In any case, I would say Rand Paul was cushioned against MORE damage from the McConnell endorsement simply because his last name is "Paul". If it were ANY other conservative Republican who is NOT the darling of the "rLOVEution" Paulbot crowd (say Mike Pence or something like that), I can guarantee you the Paulbots would be bringing up the McConnell endorsement every five seconds, beating the candidate over the head with it, and screaming loudly about what a rotten RINO traitor he is. But since Rand did it, the Paulbots will turn a blind eye.
>> “And I noticed Trump tossed the word “Israel” into his criticism of Paul. Watch the pandering, Donald. We like you because you’re NOT like most other pols.”That’s not why Trump brought up Israel. He wasn’t pandering, he was attacking. You missed the subtle point he was making against Paul. Rand and his old man Ron Paul are very anti Israel and both border on anti Semitic, Ron more overtly so than Rand. <<
Similar to the McConnell thing, if you're a Paulbot, you will absolutely be given a pass for being anti-Israel by the self-appointed "conservative leaders" in this country (most of the Tea Party groups, Erick Erikson & the red state crowd, Mark Levin, etc.). It's actually amusing since they spend the other 364 days of the year screaming at the top of their lungs about how "standing with Israel" is THE most important issue on the planet -- then continue to heap praise on any Paulbot politician who opposes Israel. For example, Justin Amash of Michigan is even more overtly anti-Isreal than either Rand OR Ron, and has a voting record to prove it (I believe he was one of only three Republicans to vote against a resolution calling on the Palestinian Authority to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist). Not only do they tolerate that, if anyone DARES criticize Amash for voting that way, they will rally the troops behind him and scream that the Republican who speaks out against Amash is part of the "GOPE!" and "hates the Constitution". Bottom line: Standing with Israel is super duper important and a deal-breaker, unless the politician is a Paulbot. If so, they can vote to wipe Israel off the map and the "Tea Party" will still love them.
You may have it nailed there. It's a very poor combination. He thinks pot-smoking fag loving 20 year olds can be his revolution, he's wrong.
In the debate he seemed like a schoolboy, getting smacked around by Cristie Creme of all people.
I never liked him, even when he was being fawned over here, he's Ron's son. A Paul is a Paul and a Bush is a Bush.
Still I'm glad he was nominated for Senate over that traitor, I was proven wrong about that jerk.
It would behoove the KY GOP to get someone else in the Senate race, in case things get effed up and Paul is kept off the Senate ballot.
The reason he made nice with McConnell was to stave off intra-party opposition in KY, in that sense it was a very wise decision, especially since Bevin would have still had zero chance to beat McConnell with or without his support. Bevin ran a horrible race against McConnell, he's grown as a candidate and is doing much better this time running for Governor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.