Oh good grief, first, true Conservative is a laugh. He is a moderate libertarian at best. Second, regarding financial issues, I guess you forgot the Constitution- all bills of taxation, revenue, and spending originate in Congress- where Paul is already that, and other than flap his gums, he has been a failure at that. He is in what should be the best position for him now, chairman of the monetary policy committee and he has done jack and squat in that role....
President of the United States primary role is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. This also includes negotiating treaties with other nations, something Paul is against yet the Constitution puts in high regard and says should be considered ‘high law of the land’.
So basically, what he proclaims to be his main goal he should be accomplishing now- he isn’t. He instead wants to move into the role that is his weakest on policy.
The man is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.
Ouch! That had to hurt! :) I admire some of his positions, but this false idea that "no true constitutionalist" can see the constitutional framework for US geopolitical involvement some other way than how RP sees it strikes me as a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The Constitution doesn't constrain foreign policy to any particular theoretical school of thought. It merely provides authority and structure to the decision-making process, always with the ultimate goal of preserving the sovereignty of We the People. As has often been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and no interpretation of it that makes us more vulnerable to our enemies rather than less can survive that test.
“The man is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.”
Consider that stolen, FRiend!
:)