What are your thoughts on Rand Paul?

[WestSideStory]

His stances on foreign policy, the Drug War, and reintegration of felons into society are refreshing. His stance on everything else is to the extreme, even worse than Ted Cruz, IMO. What are your thoughts in :re Rand Paul?

[HERVEPA]

1. He's a bigoted piece of shit.

I hope that wasn't too nuanced.

[pinboy3niner]

2. Fuck Rand Paul

I hope that wasn't too nuanced.

[cyberswede]

16. You stole my answer!

[betsuni]

32. This never gets old. nt

[Rex]

45. Fuck Rand Paul +1

[n2doc]

49. Couldn't have said it better myself! n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

52. Ditto!

Fuck Ron Paul, too.

[PeteSelman]

3. Right on three things, wrong on hundreds.

Fairly simple.

[elleng]

4. As you, I recognize the 2 (at least) components of his thoughts/beliefs.

He's more interesting than most of them.

[MADem]

5. Oh, DU has covered that topic already....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026471960

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026087758


Much more where that came from--just use the Google search bar in your upper right hand corner.

You might want to give the TOS here a gander, just so you understand what kind of people sign up to this community. You're not going to find too many people, other than socks and trolls, who feel "refreshed" by Rand Paul--or his daddy.

[WestSideStory]

34. You're intentionally taking what I said out of context

I find Rand Paul's views on three specific issues refreshing (where the libertarian position is aligned, however so, with a progressive position).

I never said nor did anyone else say Rand Paul is refreshing.

[MADem]

81. No, I'm not. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

You know, Rand Paul, and his daddy Ron, too, have websites where one can extol his virtues and talk to people who adore those racist assholes.

There's nothing refreshing about a racist with a squirrel on his head--and I don't care if you're talking about Squirrelboy himself, or his "views" on anything.

Here's another way of putting it--I don't like beets. I'll bet there are Republicans in Congress who don't like beets, either. That point of convergence doesn't make their over-arching world view more "refreshing" to me.

So, one more time--Fuck Rand Paul. And the wiglet he rode in under.

[Cleita]

6. He's an Ayn Randian idiot, who like a broken clock that's right twice a day,

can sometimes be right, but it's an accident.

[kenfrequed]

63. Yes...

Occasionally he says the sky is blue or that water is wet.

[RandySF]

7. Stand on defense?

He changed his stand on defense once he announced. He's just a typical Republican.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. He was one of the Cotton 47...He voted for the increased defense budget...

He has some heterodox positions for a Pug but if he's a progressive I'm a rocket scientist.

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Right on his drug policy as well as..

...well he's also right about....there's the thing he said about...

Nah, aside from his drug policy he's pretty worthless.

[Agnosticsherbet]

9. Rand Paul opposed the civil rights act because it violated property rights.

That says all I need to know about Rand Paul.

[Oneironaut]

10. An extremist and with a fake populist message.

Rand Paul tries to sucker voters in with the same fake populism that his father did. He purposely makes his drug war and foreign policy stances known, but hides his uglier stances. In reality, he comes from a questionable (and possibly highly racist) background, and is a far-right loon.

[TM99]

12. I agree with a few of his positions

and disagree with a whole lot more.

I wish to hell some Democratic senators had filibustered with him against the Patriot Act. I totally agree with him at that topic.

[RandySF]

13. He's a phony doctor.

The board that certified him iis of his own creation.

[COLGATE4]

65. No, he's a genuine M.D. What is isn't is

a Board Certified Opthalmologist. As you point out, the 'board' that certified him as such was of gis own creation.

[MicaelS]

14. He's a typical Libertarian Lunatic.

The only thing that needs to be "drowned in the bathtub" is the toxic Libertarian Philosophy.

[Scootaloo]

15. i try to avoid having any about him

[struggle4progress]

28. +

[KMOD]

17. I can't stand,

Rand.

[onecaliberal]

18. He's a racist hating pig.

[rationalcalgarian]

19. When I take a dump....

... I give no thought to the loaf I just left. I flush it and it's forgotten.

Next question.

[hrmjustin]

20. Rand Paul is dangerous to America.

If elected he would destroy what this country is about.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. If he could actually implement his policies, I honestly believe it would result in the deaths

of more than 50 million Americans suddenly dumped from a no-longer extant social safety net.

[chemenger]

56. True for all of the Republicans who have announced (or are planning to announce) their intention

to run for POTUS 2106.

Its not without good reason that they're compared to so many clowns (think Pennywise).

[bravenak]

21. Extreme Idiot who panders for the youth vote. Very dangerous to America.

He is a phony.

[get the red out]

22. He is anti-reproductive rights

I don't care what else he supports, he is a dangerous piece of shit who also wants no safety net, and a nut job Alex Jones guest. There are more ways to be dangerous than one.

[dembotoz]

26. this alone frightens me

Libertarian only when it fits his GOP bs

[EL34x4]

59. True, but he just pissed off the anti-abortion crowd big time.

Rand Paul: I entered politics to tackle the national debt, not abortion

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rand-paul-abortion-is-not-as-important-to-me-as-the-national-debt

He's now persona non grata to these folks.

[Adrahil]

23. Snowden praised him! He must be good, right?

To be fair, on this issue, I think he's right. A busted clock is correct twice a day.

[cali]

24. total asswipe

[FSogol]

25. Rand Paul = Griftting fraud

[etherealtruth]

27. A stopped clock is right twice daily ....

... in general, he is deranged.

[pangaia]

29. Well, it is 7:49 and it looks like you got an answer.

[WestSideStory]

31. Very good ones I might add

My own view is I think progressives and libertarians agree on a couple of issues, but for very different reasons.

Ron Paul I believe said liberals oppose the war because they want more food stamps, which is totally false. We generally opposed the war, less because of the monetary cost - and much more because of the human cost.

[JaneyVee]

30. Neo-Confederate grifter.

[Quackers]

33. I dedicated a whole thread just to this subject.

Here is my opinion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026087758

[Bluenorthwest]

35. His drug war positions are not at all as you suggest they are. He's a piece of shit and I'm also not

fond of the folks who keep suggesting he is all that different from the rest of the Republicans. He's the same as the rest of them, bad hair and all.

[sendero]

36. He's a libertarian...

... and like all libertarians he is accidentally on the right side of everything not related to business and economics and on the wrong side of everything that is.

Libertarians have a consistent, but unfortunately simplistic and oddly naive, view of the world.

[MH1]

86. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's against women's reproductive rights

which makes him not even a libertarian, but a fraud.

Being a libertarian would be bad enough, however. Totally f***ing clueless about life in the real world, OR totally f***ing callous.

[JoePhilly]

37. Whack Job.

[fadedrose]

38. I agree with you

His main fault is he's a republican. Doesn't have much stock in social programs, social security, etc......

But compared to the other devils running, he's the most palatable.

[Javaman]

39. broken clock halfwit.

he's also a self serving bigot.

fuck him.

[The_Commonist]

40. I originally heard this in relation to Newt Gingrich...

...but I also think it applies to Rand Paul:

He's the kind of person who stupid people think is smart.

(or something like that)

I don't think his "stances" on anything are "refreshing." They are, or should be, simply normal. But since he is obviously a right-wing whack-job, those "stances" come off as "refreshing" because the rest of his ideology is so demented.

But I don't think he's worse than Ted Cruz, for whatever that is worth.

[hatrack]

41. Ten pounds of shit, one-pound bag

.

[nruthie]

42. Absolutely nothing.

[hobbit709]

43. I start with asshole and go from there.

[Autumn]

44. Fuck Rand Paul?

[Gothmog]

46. Rand Paul will not be the GOP nominee

The GOP donor class hates Rand Paul and his dad

[L0oniX]

47. Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

[Reter]

77. All he did was ask

Alerting was ridiculous.

[L0oniX]

79. Yep ...I voted ...leave it

[longship]

48. Why does he wear a weasel on his head?

[DCBob]

50. This question is a waste of board space.

[seabeyond]

51. he says fuck you... to women. why would anyone find that "refreshing". hypocrite taking care of

his own self interesting and a bigot to boot

refreshing

[HassleCat]

53. Strange and Stupid

I know that sounds like a gratuitous insult, but I can't help myself thinking he's weird and dim. I do appreciate some libertarian positions on social issues, but Rand Paul is all over the map, mixing extreme conservative views with libertarian positions. As a bonus, he gets angry at reporters and says things that make no sense at all. Apparently, he could not get certified as an ophthalmologist by the established board, so he started his own board and certified himself. My impression of him is that he's not very smart, and a con artist.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. He doesn't arrive at his stances in the same way you do, and in fact implementation of those

stances might end up horrifying you, even if they sound fine (to you and others) in sound bites.

Maybe he breaks with his dad on drugs, but his dad was 'anti-Drug War' because he wanted it to be run by the states, not the federal government. He thought it was 'inefficient' as run by the Feds.

And, tbh, 'foreign policy' is at the bottom of the list of things I care about, unless you mean how we're going to work with other countries to rein in climate change. We're ass-backwards on our foreign policy on pretty much everything. We spy on everyone, we pick fights, we egg on other folks' fights, we prop up dictators, we exploit other countries' labour and resources to make our rich even richer.

So in general, I rate him just another greedhead loony, with a few odd twists.

[WestSideStory]

64. +1

I think it's fair to say libertarians justify their positions on a monetary benefit analysis, progressives are interested in the human cost and benefit (e.g Iraq War/Drug War ruins lives, not primarily it's just too costly.)

This is not to say politically progressives should not unite with the tea party/libertarians on specific issues (e.g eminent domain on TransCanada). That's governing and being smart. But I totally agree with your post.

[Marrah_G]

57. He is a selfish little ass with dangerous ideas

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. A lot of awful politicians have a couple of good ideas

Case in point: Pat Buchanan was one of the first politicians from any party to speak on TV about the effects of offshoring on the American working class. Other than that, he is a hidebound reactionary who shouldn't be elected dogcatcher.

[Paladin]

60. I don't trust any public figure who is obviously incapable of combing his own hair.....

...or getting himself properly dressed in the morning. And as far as Rand Paul's goofy political views go......

I trust I make myself clear.

[rock]

61. -

[kenfrequed]

62. Most of my thoughts are already covered

He is an opportunistic clown that doesn't even have the fortitude to really embrace the great stupidity of Randroid-libertarian insanity. Instead he mingles it with the worst aspects of placating the theocratic of his party while making nonsensical noises about economic libertarianism.

He really is scum trading on his father's highly questionable name in his vain quest for the presidency.

[Cosmocat]

66. Took over his father's franchise

and being an intellectual midget, son of privilege with a super weak inner core has already started to stray from its foundation in his desperate grasp at being the republican nominee for president.

Can't rule out the capacity for mass stupidity by our electorate, but he likely is going to do enough damage to the brand while flaming out that he will lose most of his niche after this run and be "relegated" to just coasting along as one of his state's senators for a few decades, maybe make a run at governor at some point.

[workinclasszero]

67. Hes a lying POS teabagger racist

I think that about covers it.

[Jefferson23]

68. He has made clear he promotes savagery, his father was more slick about his message and

his no vote on Iraq led people to think his ideas of freedom made sense. They don't,
he and his father have no problem with Americans dying from lack of healthcare.


They are also bigoted on minorities of all stripes..he is an equal opportunity hater.

[Orsino]

69. He has no "stances" that aren't for sale.

Please don't be fooled by his occasional common-sense pronouncements that might sound compassionate and sensible.

He'll fuck you over every chance he gets, because that's what he does.

[SummerSnow]

70. Here are my thoughts on him

[PeaceNikki]

71. Here are some things I have written about his pops which apply to him

His ideas are stupid, and won't work in the real world. It's no wonder that most of his supporters are people who don't understand what it means to live as self-supporting members of society.

And there is his UN/NWO bullshit is just that. Bullshit. The UN has no way to affectthe 2nd Amendment or any portion of the US Constitution. He is a paranoid, xenophobic crazy-man. aPaulogists are like cult members.

I actually kind of envy the aPaulogists their evidently bottomless stores of denial and ability to excuse EVERY glaring deficit in their completely twisted Great Leader. That kind of confidence is really pure in its way, even if it IS utterly blinkered and moronic and could get us all killed.

Paul is a wolf. The fact that he is the one trying to fit into the sheep suit isn't the entire problem, however; his platform is stupid and impractical.

What I find amusing is that some people support him on the grounds that the present system doesn't work. But it actually does, more or less. Libertarians want to exchange a system which actually works reasonably well for the majority for a system which doesn't work for anyone, except in a theoretical vacuum. It wants to let the market determine the economy without regulation. What's funny about that is the ones who are supporters of "OWS", yet support a guy who would remove all the socioeconomic checks and balances currently applied to the "1%".

Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or pacifism; he would also withdraw from the UN (including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

I don't know much about economics, but a return to the gold standard appears to me to be a likely trigger for severe deflation. Furthermore, while operating in gold might have worked 200 years ago, in a truly global economy, it doesn't.

He would remove social spending for almost everything, assuming the states would pick up the bill. First of all, where does he think the states will get the money for this? From the federal government, of course! So what's changed?

He claims to want to lower tuition, but what he wants to do is actually remove government control of tuition, and (wait for it) let the private sector deal with it. Do you actually believe that will result in lower education costs? Really?

None of us have time to cover point for point why Paul's selective and obsolete vision of a libertarian utopia won't work.

Let's just say it is the perpetual motion machine of political dogma; if it worked it would be really impressive and everyone would be happy, but it doesn't.

And, they have a paranoid nutter at the helm. Better luck next time.

His ideas are stupid, and won't work in the real world. It's no wonder that most of his supporters are people who don't understand what it means to live as self-supporting members of society.

And there is his UN/NWO bullshit is just that. Bullshit. The UN has no way to affectthe 2nd Amendment or any portion of the US Constitution. He is a paranoid, xenophobic crazy-man. aPaulogists are like cult members.

I actually kind of envy the aPaulogists their evidently bottomless stores of denial and ability to excuse EVERY glaring deficit in their completely twisted Great Leader. That kind of confidence is really pure in its way, even if it IS utterly blinkered and moronic and could get us all killed.

Paul is a wolf. The fact that he is the one trying to fit into the sheep suit isn't the entire problem, however; his platform is stupid and impractical.

What I find amusing is that some people support him on the grounds that the present system doesn't work. But it actually does, more or less. Libertarians want to exchange a system which actually works reasonably well for the majority for a system which doesn't work for anyone, except in a theoretical vacuum. It wants to let the market determine the economy without regulation. What's funny about that is the ones who are supporters of "OWS", yet support a guy who would remove all the socioeconomic checks and balances currently applied to the "1%".

Sure, he opposes military intervention in foreign wars, but not out of a sense of decency or pacifism; he would also withdraw from the UN (including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, foreign aid would disappear, and if you think "unstable" regions are bad now, imagine what they would be like with the double-edged sword of multinational (read: US) corporate interests moving unchecked throughout the developing world AND an absence of monitored unilateral military involvement in those regions. Paul's position isn't one of altruism; it's one of isolationism. Not that I'm an advocate of First World military involvement in foreign problems, but look at what isolationism has netted in the past.

I don't know much about economics, but a return to the gold standard appears to me to be a likely trigger for severe deflation. Furthermore, while operating in gold might have worked 200 years ago, in a truly global economy, it doesn't.

He would remove social spending for almost everything, assuming the states would pick up the bill. First of all, where does he think the states will get the money for this? From the federal government, of course! So what's changed?

He claims to want to lower tuition, but what he wants to do is actually remove government control of tuition, and (wait for it) let the private sector deal with it. Do you actually believe that will result in lower education costs? Really?

None of us have time to cover point for point why Paul's selective and obsolete vision of a libertarian utopia won't work.

Let's just say it is the perpetual motion machine of political dogma; if it worked it would be really impressive and everyone would be happy, but it doesn't.

And, they have a paranoid nutter at the helm. Better luck next time.

Do you know how exactly Paul would effectively 'end' the war on drugs as POTUS?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to know what his plan would be.

Sure, it's cool and sexy to say, "End the War on Drugs!". But, what would he do? Call off the DoJ? Huh, that would work while he was in office, but then what? Would he decriminalize drugs? How can he exactly do that... as POTUS?

[Dem2]

72. Opportunist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

He sees an issue he can exploit, he jumps on it.

[blm]

73. Any vote for RandPaul is a vote for rule of corporate empires (Full-on Fascism)

The policies that sound good are just bait for those susceptible to being baited.

[bigwillq]

74. Has some good ideas and stances, but think he's a scumbag (nt)

[KamaAina]

75. Dear FSM, that is one ugly rug!

[Lint Head]

76. Rand, Paul, George and Ringo?

Didn't they record a song cause "Here Comes the Son"?

[Reter]

78. Good on a few things like the Patriot Act, NDAA, the 4th Amendment, and most wars

Decent on Wall Street, bad on other things. I hope he runs against Bernie, because the establishment will go nuts.

[geek tragedy]

80. Rand Paul "decent on Wall Street."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/rand-paul-banking-collapse-was-caused-by-em-too-much-em-regulation

Rand Paul: Banking Collapse Was Caused By Too Much Regulation

[Reter]

82. Decent compared to Bush, Obama, or Hillary

Not decent compared to you or I. He supports no regulation, but also no bailouts.

[geek tragedy]

88. Lol, no, the Koch Brothers' sycophant

is not decent on Wall Street compared to Clinton or Obama.

Nice try.

[reddread]

83. has the same job to do that Edwards had

there are rabble to distract and pacify before insertion, and plenty of money to be made doing so.

[Lil Missy]

84. He always sounds like he's whining.

And he comes off as pretentious.

[hifiguy]

85. A lying, unprincipled piece of shit with a dead Tribble

glued on his empty head.

[olddots]

87. a carpet scrap on a puss boil

a wanna be cult leader ........I could go on for pages .

[Jamaal510]

89. IDK what to think about RP anymore;

the guy has been all over the map politically, whether it is changing his tune on defense spending to what he says about the Civil Rights Act, and then claiming to want to attract Black voters. The only thing I'm sure about with him is that he needs to either go see a barber or get some hair pomade right away.

[99Forever]

90. He's a shitball sandwich without bread.

[lovemydog]

91. I think he and most libertarians are self-absorbed assholes.

But I wish we'd end the drug war and reintegrate felons into society. In spite of Rand Paul and other libertarians. Not because of them. Plenty of others believe doing that is the right thing to do. I'm not sure why racist assholes like Paul get any credit whatsoever for discussing it. I have zero interest in the ideas of a guy who thinks the civil rights act should be abolished.