They tell you he's not the same as his father, despite the fact that we regularly run into him making comments that espouse similar positions on defense, immigration, gay marriage, drugs, Abortion, Social Issues, et al. He often emends those comments; but suspicions of Rand Paul aren't just entirely due to his last name. They're due to his expressed positions uttered before he gets the chance to gray them up semantically with the help of professionals.
Strangely enough, we hear from his supporters that he's a serious presidential contender because he's already got a national infrastructure. Oh, really? A first-term Senator from Kentucky has a national presidential infrastructure? How is this so? I'll tell you what they mean: they mean Ron Paul's infrastructure. Interesting how Rand can just seamlessly fill in for Ron and not lose any of his father's supporters, despite their supposed major differences.
I really hope Ron Paul runs in 2016. In fact, we need to raise some hell and make some noise and draft him to run! Maybe if both Ron and Rand run, we can have a real discussion about their major issue differences!
Don't be fooled. There's a reason all Ron Paul supporters are behind Rand, and it's not because he's a Reaganite Republican, or because he's so different from his father. It's because they know, just like we know, the differences are miscible.
Soften on social issues?
With an out of wedlock birth rate of >40% and getting worse? Show me a society that has ever survived that.
Our culture is virtually dead, and almost pagan at this point.
There won’t be a country left if the current trends continue and Rand is okay with them continuing so “we” can win elections? To have power in a dead society?
No thanks.
Judging by the posts in this thread I gotta feeling the supreme witch hillary will be the next president.
If the GOP gets any softer on social issues, they may as well be Democrats. Sounds like Rand Paul is GOP_e, to me.
There is a strong argument here. Fiscal conservatisms will lead to social conservatism. It is all about the money. Once you cut off the funding for all the liberal causes, they will decline.
Not one dimes worth of difference.
The problem with conservatives is they are losers and are unable to win. They can not put aside their petty pipe dreams of purity and social righteous. Silly conservatives you teach morality inside the walls of your own home and from your pulpit one soul at a time.
Get off your fat lazy arses and go out and change a life tomorrow another the next day., Put goodness in and get goodness out.
Restore the Republic!
I have said repeatedly, and I say again “the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree”.
Rand Paul is perhaps one of the last persons I’d ever vote for anything.
Well then, Rand, don’t vote for Ted Cruz for President. You always struck me as a little bit goofy, and disingenuous about big issues such as repealing Obamakill and amnesty. I think you suck. Bob
We need to soften and the pull all funding from these parasites and let the starve.
Thanks for this thread.
Senator Rand Paul seems, at times, to be interested in bringing the failed idea of the “Big Tent” back into the Republican Party with statements such as this one: “ - - -”I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, - - - . “
What purpose does a “bigger” Republican Party have to restoring the Core Values that our sorry Congressional RINOs have refused to defend by their cave-in, doormat votes to their effective boss Obama?
Senator Paul does not recognize the there has been for the past 5 years virtually no effective difference between the Congressional RINO and Democrat Leaderships.
Thus, a really “Big” Republican Party will just make for more really big cave-ins to Democrats, IMHO.
Congressional RINO Leadership has proven to be incompetent for the last five years.
Replacing Congressional RINO Leadership with fire-in-the-belly Republicans such as Trey Gowdy would do more to give us Conservative voters a reason to vote FOR Republican Candidates, regardless of how “big” the Republican Party becomes.
Paul is concerned about assembling an army and THEN mounting a steady trend to tolerance.
We are asking ALL of the Republicans to fight with what you have NOW, and to fight to the last man/woman!
GIVE US A REASON TO VOTE FROR YOU!
IOW, attack Attack, ATTACK!
And to Hell with the “look, or size” of the doormat Republican Party!
Maybe the republicans should learn to compromise more. I mean, not one voted for Obamacare. Couldn’t the repubs have had at least a few voted? This really makes the repubs look partisan and mean. You know, why cant we all just get along? </s>
Every conservative, every libertarian, every constitutionalist should have the same answer to these things.
We have a 10th Amendment. It leaves things not explicitly delegated to the Federal government to the states.
End of discussion.
Hank
If it is all about the money then we are nothing but slaves and widgets.
I’m afraid Rand wouldn’t be any better than Nixon in 1968. And I’m not saying Rand will win by the narrow margin of popular votes that Nixon did.
Good-bye, Rand. You have fallen to the bottom of my list for 2016.
I will say what I always say: FISCAL CONSERVATISM *IS* SOCIAL CONSERVATISM. A massive reduction in the size of government will defund the social Left’s pet projects like Planned Parenthood, NPR, elementary school “fisting” instruction, etc.
Social conservatives need to learn the language of culture of critique. Social liberalism is a complete fail, learn to articulate that.