Rand Paul Rails Against ‘Chameleon’ Donald Trump

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul lashed out at Donald Trump during a campaign event Saturday in South Carolina, arguing conservatives can’t trust the New York businessman because he has “been on both sides of every issue.”

“My goodness,” Paul said in Goose Creek to the Berkeley County GOP. “He’s been on both sides of every issue. Where is our sense? Where is our common sense?”

Added the Kentucky senator: “This is a guy who has been pro-choice before he was pro-life. This is a guy who was liberal before he was conservative. This is a guy who was a Democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat before he was an independent before he was back to being a Republican.”

“I have no idea if he’s conservative,” Paul said. “We are kidding ourselves to even consider someone who is such a chameleon that he’s been on every side of every issue. Wake up America. Wake up Republicans!”

Paul and Trump have been feuding since the senator went on offense against Trump during Thursday’s Republican debate.

“How can we have Tea Party conservatives in our country think somehow Donald Trump is going to help us?” Paul said. “He’s the consummate insider. What’s wrong with Washington? People buying and selling politicians. What’s Donald Trump known for? Buying and selling politicians.”

You can add both thought and PC police to your list of "offended" parties. LOL

The contrived outrage is a fun spectacle to observe. Like poor actors in a bad movie, the fake, cheap imitations are so bad they're actually 'good'.

It's clear the PC barricade is not only breaking down, but like the Maginot line, once the enemy gets behind the gates, there's no effective counter measure. That is, the previous defensive line becomes dead weight.

What I'm looking for are incipient trends that the ant farmers (ie owners of the Fed) are ready to discard the mature media/DC cartel for new business opportunities afforded by backing a new populist era.

Trump might just be a beacon that is indicating that the smart money needs to get in front of a new emerging trend. If you knew the media/DC cartel were wounded, how much money could you make shorting their valuations?

I joined Ronald Reagan’s cult too.

Not a comparison worthy of a good, long time, Freeper. What Reagan lead was no cult. No unless you wanted to call "America" a cult and I doubt you'd feel at all at home with others who think that. There was nothing mysterious nor hidden about Reagan and his supporters. He spoke and governed the same way from well before THE SPEECH in 1964 until God retired his voice.

I'm happy to have Trump on my team as long as he continues selling Conservatism. I won't consider him for leader of my team until he's convinced me he'll fight for Conservatism and keep selling it through one, and hopefully two, terms. My sale is made by a record of words AND deeds. Trump's record is certainly sufficient proof that he'll keep fighting… for Trump. As a fighter and salesman for Conservatism my deal isn't closed, at least not yet. I'm in Iowa so he has 6 months to win me around. His mannerisms at the debate weren't my style, but I can accept them if convinced he'd produce the results I want. But he said some very worrisome things there. How many Freepers would want HRC anywhere near their wedding, much less would "order" her to attend it?! If he has a reason other than wanting a publicity stunt I hope he offers it. I've had more than enough 'publicity stunt' politicians to last my lifetime. Of his saying national health care worked well in Canada, as a physician with physician relatives in Canada I know better. Of his saying national health care worked well in Scotland, those Scots are so liberal they broke their deal with the Labour Party and voted to move Scotland somewhere left of Bernie Sander's Vermont. They probably think golf balls should be free.

The GOP's problem isn't a lack of fighters. It's that many of its fighters speak Conservative, but fight for Big Government Crony Liberalism. Of the 17 contenders several clearly fit that category, but there are some plausible Conservative fighters. And there are some whose placement remains controversial. Just speaking 'Conservative' is necessary, but not sufficient. Use the campaign to "trust, but verify" self styled Conservatives. Trump's record suggests a high ceiling, but also a very low floor. Meanwhile I'm Cruzing with Ted. He has the best list of enemies and one's enemies often know you best.

You've got to pull (way) back and observe top level macro factors. As long as the debt continues to increase and the USD maintains its reserve status, it really doesn't matter which parties and/or policies are in effect.

We've had open borders, PC and outsourcing for something like 40 years. The left has mistakenly assumed that events running in their favor during this period have been indicative of sincere, true changes in cultural attitudes.

However, let's assume a new populist era is emerging from the stale state of affairs represented by the media/DC cartel. Why would you care that money was shifted to building an effective defensive perimeter, both physical & virtual (ie electronic ID) as long as you got in on the ground floor?

Besides, culture/society can only swing so far one way - the left - until a point comes were once it's established as the status quo, you can only go the other way - the right - to create any kind of controversy that generates page views and exposure.

The pity (not really) is low-level party hacks, like the handful @ FR trolling these threads, are the last to know that the smart money is exiting stage left. They're still here, parroting their boring & frankly ridiculous/dated talking points, whereas savvy operators will want to get behind the social phenomenon of 150-200m angry, pissed off citizens.

Again, it comes down to basic business common sense: if someone wants a burger serve them a burger. If they want chicken, ditto. Why fight the trend when you can get in front of it? Like the collapse of the USSR, we could possibly see the collapse of the media/DC cartel seemingly overnight.

I joined Ronald Reagan’s cult too.

Not a comparison worthy of a good, long time, Freeper. What Reagan lead was no cult. No unless you wanted to call "America" a cult and I doubt you'd feel at all at home with others who think that. There was nothing mysterious nor hidden about Reagan and his supporters. He spoke and governed the same way from well before THE SPEECH in 1964 until God retired his voice.

I don't object to that response. On the surface it is defensive of Reagan and his policies. Where I think you served off point, is thinking I thought Reagan was a Cult Leader.

The same folks who are calling Trump a cult leader today, were ones thinking Reagan was a cult leader in his day. LINK

I'm happy to have Trump on my team as long as he continues selling Conservatism. I won't consider him for leader of my team until he's convinced me he'll fight for Conservatism and keep selling it through one, and hopefully two, terms.

I would submit that nobody should ask more than that from you. I won't. I wouldn't ask more than that of myself.

My sale is made by a record of words AND deeds. Trump's record is certainly sufficient proof that he'll keep fighting… for Trump. As a fighter and salesman for Conservatism my deal isn't closed, at least not yet. I'm in Iowa so he has 6 months to win me around. His mannerisms at the debate weren't my style, but I can accept them if convinced he'd produce the results I want.

Once again, that is neither too high or too low a bar to set IMO. Your comments there strike the right standard. Observe and react to what takes place over time. If Trump implodes, none of us should support him.

But he said some very worrisome things there. How many Freepers would want HRC anywhere near their wedding, much less would "order" her to attend it?! If he has a reason other than wanting a publicity stunt I hope he offers it.

In the paragraph before this one (artificially broken out that way so I could focus on each comment), you touched on the important point IMO. Trump operated for Trump. I'm sure he still does, but I also think he operates on behalf of the nation at this point in time.

When he had the Clinton's come to his wedding, it was so he would look good. It wasn't so they would. Hey I mingle with ex-presidents and senators. His donations to them don't tell me he was a die-hard supporter. It told me it was about him wanting access. She was a leading government official from his state. It didn't mean he was "all in for her agenda", anymore than his donations to Republicans meant he was all in for theirs. It was all about Trump,. I am told this is not unusual for businesses to do this. I've never operated in that rarified air, so I wouldn't know from experience.

I've had more than enough 'publicity stunt' politicians to last my lifetime. Of his saying national health care worked well in Canada, as a physician with physician relatives in Canada I know better. Of his saying national health care worked well in Scotland, those Scots are so liberal they broke their deal with the Labour Party and voted to move Scotland somewhere left of Bernie Sander's Vermont. They probably think golf balls should be free.

These comments are not popular with me. I agree with you as it relates to health care. His presetation has addressed "private sector" fixes to Obamacare. He has also stated he wants to eliminate state lines restricting competition between insurers across state lines, hopefully making more policies available and more competition to bring insurance rates down. So while I do think his comments about Canda's health care system are wrong, his comments about the private sector do exhibit and understanding of where we should head. This is not indicative of single payer..

The GOP's problem isn't a lack of fighters. It's that many of its fighters speak Conservative, but fight for Big Government Crony Liberalism. Of the 17 contenders several clearly fit that category, but there are some plausible Conservative fighters. And there are some whose placement remains controversial. Just speaking 'Conservative' is necessary, but not sufficient. Use the campaign to "trust, but verify" self styled Conservatives. Trump's record suggests a high ceiling, but also a very low floor. Meanwhile I'm Cruzing with Ted. He has the best list of enemies and one's enemies often know you best.

I can see myself voting for Ted too, but I'm not convinced the same old problem doesn't stop him dead in his trackes in 2016. Open primaries and caucuses allow Democrats to enter into our nomination process, and I don't see Cruz taking the majority of those votes. In past elections that has meant Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney became our nominees.

Our Conservative favorites looking quite strong to us, were mowed down by the GOPe machine. Each time we thought we could avoid the trap.

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.