Rand Paul Rails Against ‘Chameleon’ Donald Trump

Well, yes...but the same can be said about Rand Paul himself.

Not only that but Rand Paul also blocked David Vitter’s investigation into fraudulent Health Exchange applications by other members of Congress. He provided cover for Mitch McConnell.

Yeah, he sold out pretty quickly once he got into congress.

I've been reading your posts for enough years FRiend to be certain you didn't really think Reagan lead a cult. And I think I understood, and can accept, the point you were trying to make. But I thought your statement was too dangerous to leave out there unchallenged where newbies or even trolls might point. The left is still trying to besmirch Reagan's legacy with those too young to remember him. May I suggest it would have been safer with quotes: I joined Ronald Reagan's 'cult' too.

As I said, I hope Trump offers an acceptable explanation for inviting HRC to his wedding. Ideally doing so on his own, but if he doesn't he MUST be, politely, asked for one at a debate by someone. Because if no explanation occurs in a the primary campaign its a certainly that the question would be asked during the general, and in a way that won't allow a good answer. It would be, "Mitt, if ObamaCare is so bad, why did you invent it?" all over again.

I recognize the reality of self styled big wigs mingling with other big wigs, looking for better access, although as the Donald himself implied ("The system is broken") I'm not enthused by it. As a small business and small government (at least federally) guy, "the biggest, best (crony) Dealer" sure makes me think of GOPe territory. I'd rather his business sense called for Deals in Albany or Manhattan, from where any losers wouldn't have to go as far to escape.

Trump's off the cuff healthcare comments, in the context of the past 6+ years, suggest he either hasn't thought very much about what was THE biggest issue before Obama doubled and trebled down. Saying he wanted to allow insurance purchases across state lines (a good, but very old idea with the added virtue of being constitutional) and having more private sector involvement were the most generic GOP answers possible. For a Big Dealer, the attraction of one stop shopping at a predictable price for something as expensive as health care must be huge. To a doctor who's being following this debate literally since LBJ proposed Medicare (as a kid in a family full of conservative doctors!) his remarks scream of the normal liberal fallacy that single payor will work when I run it. If Trump's health care statements don't improve —a lot— and if G*d grants us anything like a real GOP primary season they will drop him to Lindsey Graham's debate group.

Alas that 'if' remains prayer worthy. You are right to fear GOPe theft. At a minimum the Donald is helpful while he 'Trumps' the usual barriers thrown at conservative discourse. Probably no one else today could do that as well. Smart Conservatives will take advantage of this and resist GOPe efforts to repair those barriers. The last primary cycle featured serial candidate boomlets and self destructions, ending with Santorum as the, at least mostly sincerely, last Conservative standing. But Rick was a weak candidate and Romney benefitted from having been the last, shall we say 'better than McCain' candidate standing in the prior, pre-Obamacare, primary. This time the Conservative field is stronger and the RINO field (unless one is inclined to count Trump therein) is weaker. And if HRC remains this weak the Rats may be stuck (I pray) with real primaries, limiting their crossover potential.

We MUST win this time. Given the choice of HRC vs. Graham I'd suck it up and vote for that weakest House Manager. At least he kept his oath, unlike ALL 100 Senators. His Veep would likely be better and would offer the hope of divine promotions. I can conceive where only Trump could win, but I also can conceive of him annoying enough of our base to lose a winnable race. But I also can conceive of one of the others winning the race easily. So many are desperate to end "Hoax and Chains."

LINK to my post you're responding to...

Thank you for your resposne.

I've been reading your posts for enough years FRiend to be certain you didn't really think Reagan lead a cult. And I think I understood, and can accept, the point you were trying to make. But I thought your statement was too dangerous to leave out there unchallenged where newbies or even trolls might point. The left is still trying to besmirch Reagan's legacy with those too young to remember him. May I suggest it would have been safer with quotes: I joined Ronald Reagan's 'cult' too.

You can suggest it. I don't agree for several reasons.

1. What mileage could be made from a guy admitting he was a part of the Reagan Cult on a Conservative forum? No Conservative thinks Reagan was a cult leader, and if you say newbies wouldn't know that, then what would be the benefit of linking folks here based on the idea even Conservatives thought he was a cult leader? Anyone coming would immediate note the sarcasim.

2. As if that wasn't enough, I said he was considered a cult leader by the same people who call Trump a cult leader. Then I link to a formidable list of Leftists that think Reagan was a cult leader then and think Trump is one today. This leaves no doubt the type of people making the charge. It's obvious I didn't consider myself in that group.

I'm fairly confident a newbie would grasp the meaning of these comments.

As I said, I hope Trump offers an acceptable explanation for inviting HRC to his wedding. Ideally doing so on his own, but if he doesn't he MUST be, politely, asked for one at a debate by someone. Because if no explanation occurs in a the primary campaign its a certainly that the question would be asked during the general, and in a way that won't allow a good answer. It would be, "Mitt, if ObamaCare is so bad, why did you invent it?" all over again.

I provided an explanation to you earlier. Trump needn't say anything about it. People should refer to my previous post to you.

I recognize the reality of self styled big wigs mingling with other big wigs, looking for better access, although as the Donald himself implied ("The system is broken") I'm not enthused by it. As a small business and small government (at least federally) guy, "the biggest, best (crony) Dealer" sure makes me think of GOPe territory. I'd rather his business sense called for Deals in Albany or Manhattan, from where any losers wouldn't have to go as far to escape.

This is all well and good. I don't particularly like it either, but let's keep this in perspective. It is in compliance with the law. Big donors have a right to donate too. McCain/Fiengold was stricken down on that basis. Good old John complied, but used a loophole to amass massive donations in excess of everyone elses.

Trump's off the cuff healthcare comments, in the context of the past 6+ years, suggest he either hasn't thought very much about what was THE biggest issue before Obama doubled and trebled down. Saying he wanted to allow insurance purchases across state lines (a good, but very old idea with the added virtue of being constitutional) and having more private sector involvement were the most generic GOP answers possible. For a Big Dealer, the attraction of one stop shopping at a predictable price for something as expensive as health care must be huge. To a doctor who's being following this debate literally since LBJ proposed Medicare (as a kid in a family full of conservative doctors!) his remarks scream of the normal liberal fallacy that single payor will work when I run it. If Trump's health care statements don't improve —a lot— and if G*d grants us anything like a real GOP primary season they will drop him to Lindsey Graham's debate group.

This is more or less a rehash. I addressed it in my previous post to you. I refer you and others there because I touch on points that make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump wants as many Insurance players as possible in all markets acros the nation, to build competition, increase the variety of plans, and lower rates. This is not in any concept reminiscent of single player. None the less, you address the issue again here. It was unnecessary based on the information I already provided to you. If you like, Trump addressed his idea to replace Obamacare in his Arizona appearance a few weeks back. That exists on YouTube now. Here's a link to it. I don't know exactly where it is located. I did see it here. This is a long video, but I want to give folks the chance to see the after event press event too. BTW: This isn't a perfect plan. After you've found and listened to it, ask me quesitons, if you like.

LINK

Alas that 'if' remains prayer worthy. You are right to fear GOPe theft. At a minimum the Donald is helpful while he 'Trumps' the usual barriers thrown at conservative discourse. Probably no one else today could do that as well. Smart Conservatives will take advantage of this and resist GOPe efforts to repair those barriers. The last primary cycle featured serial candidate boomlets and self destructions, ending with Santorum as the, at least mostly sincerely, last Conservative standing. But Rick was a weak candidate and Romney benefitted from having been the last, shall we say 'better than McCain' candidate standing in the prior, pre-Obamacare, primary. This time the Conservative field is stronger and the RINO field (unless one is inclined to count Trump therein) is weaker. And if HRC remains this weak the Rats may be stuck (I pray) with real primaries, limiting their crossover potential.

Well, the point I made in the same response to you addresses our real problem. Our early primaries are open primaries. Democrats vote in them. Do you think Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz will appeal more to the Democrat voters? Not trying to shut off debate on you, but I can't imagine you thinking Cruz takes more delegates in the early primaries than Bush.

We MUST win this time. Given the choice of HRC vs. Graham I'd suck it up and vote for that weakest House Manager. At least he kept his oath, unlike ALL 100 Senators. His Veep would likely be better and would offer the hope of divine promotions. I can conceive where only Trump could win, but I also can conceive of him annoying enough of our base to lose a winnable race. But I also can conceive of one of the others winning the race easily. So many are desperate to end "Hoax and Chains."

Trump could imlode. Any of them could. Do we refuse to back any of them based on that? Do we refuse to back any of them based on that? At this point I sure don't see a reason to.

Was that the Libertarian Rand, the Libertarian-Conservative Rand, or the Ron’s-little-boy-Rand speaking?

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.

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.
[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform
Latinos, 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]

Are you stupid? Fox fed Christie a question inviting Christie to attack Paul. And Christie did. He attempted to cut down Paul and shit all over the US Constitution. Paul responded and correctly pointed out that Christie is a hardcore anti-American scumbag.

Only people who hate freedom and America could possibly think Christie won that exchange.

"Only people who hate freedom and America could possibly think Christie won that exchange."

Only certified nut cases could believe otherwise. Your whacko conspiracy theories would be humorous if one believed that you were serious. You need help.

Good point. The question would be: would his allegence be to America or would it be to the pay masters - his peers while in business. What kind of character does he have? Is he a patriot or a globalist?

We also don’t know a lot of his agenda. He’s good on closing the border...not sure what he would do with all the illegals that have flooded in under Obama. I like his tax plan but there is a fat chance he’d get it through Congress. He was for limiting the second amendment before he was against it...same with abortion. People can grow...change their minds as they get older and wiser (hopefully).

Ted Cruz would be a surer bet on ideology and honesty but he’s not as mean as Trump and how would Cruz do with the uniparty and the UN (and now the Vatican) undermining him at every turn. Would they dare to take on Donald - he’s a junk yard dog not unlike the uniparty, UN and the Vatican.

So do you still think Rand Paul helped himself in the debate? Few others do. By a 3 to 1 ratio people thought less of Paul after his childish performance.

According to the post debate Reuters/Ipsos poll:

"Other candidates fared better. Voters were more likely to say the debate had improved their opinions of Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Only Kentucky Senator Rand Paul appears to have been hurt, as 8 percent said their opinion of him improved while 22 percent said they felt more negative."