Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

If they are cronies then show me where he has done favors for these donors or else admit you have no connections and are grasping at straws right now. When he shows them regulatory favor like Obama has done for his friends or Bush his then we'll talk.

 

There's an old saying, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and annoys the pig."

Anyone that can't see that Rand Paul supports unfair tax policies that play favoritism for corporations and investors over sole proprietorships and working Americans is simply being ignorant. "Favoritism" by government, and Rand Paul is part of our government, is the foundation of crony capitalism.

The fact is that both sides of the isle in Congress support crony capitalism as reflected by our unfair tax codes so I've decided to address that separately in a new thread. It is a proposal that, based upon what Rand Paul has stated publically, he'd oppose. I can't state uncategorically that he'd reject it but every indication I have implies that he would oppose it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ny-capitalism-taxation-us.html#post1062725293

 

Rand Paul talks out of both sides of his mouth.

He proposes a "Personhood" Bill to pander to the "pro-lifers" one week.....the next?

"What I would say is there are thousands of exceptions,” Paul responded. “I’m a physician, and every individual case is going to be different. Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother…. I think it is important we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeonhole and say this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family and physician."----"Ron Junior"

 

Not inconsistent. You can believe in "personhood" and be anti-abortion but also accept the rational exceptions.

 

Not at all. You've yet to show me the favors he's bestowed on specific corporations that contributed to him and want to obfuscate by calling me ignorant.

Instead, why don't you cough up the data that you have to prove this point and quit trying to straw man me?

 

LOL! Yea, I wish he would run, that way the Republican party will lose some votes. He will run as a Libertarian.

He is another lose canon just like his father.

 

The Libertarian Party rejected the Tea Party Movement virtually from its inception and Rand Paul really isn't welcome. He would be no more welcome than Michelle Bachmann.

 

It's "loose cannon." Unless you mean to say that he is a "lost canon," but that would be awkward. Canon to what?

And at this point, I'd rather have Bush back than Obama, and I'm a damn liberal. Ain't that sad? Welcome to 2013 America.

 

Another ignorant who fails to understand that the Pauls are trying to empower the people. But it would seem the big ol' government has you convinced it's actually there to help you.

 

Empower the People to do what? Violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person based upon a vote?

Both Ron and Rand Paul oppose the Inalienable Right of Self of a Woman (that is a Person) related to abortion. Both Ron and Rand Paul have proposed that state government or the people of a state can deny the Right of Self of the Woman by denying her Rights related to HER Body in choosing to have an abortion.

Rand Paul openly opposes the Inalienable (natural) Right of Citizenship of the Person based upon jus soli (as established in the 14th Amendment) and believes that this Right of Citizenship should be subjected to the statutory laws of Congress. In short he proposes that citizenship should be a privilege granted under statutory law and not a Constitutionally protected Right of the Person.

 

First of all, an abortion is not a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) right. It's legality depends on when exactly you consider a fetus an individual person, thus giving it the right to live; ergo, you cannot abort it at that point. Before that point , it would be legal.

Since it is an issue of life and death, I would argue it should be a federal law; we would need to determine exactly at what point we want to consider that fetus a person. Before that point, abortion is legal; after that, it is not. If, by some miracle, we determine that a person becomes a person as soon as they come into existence, then sorry, abortion wouldn't be legal anymore. But I doubt it would go that far if it were voted on.

You don't have to agree with Ron Paul on abortion; I don't agree with him opposing it, but as long as he doesn't force that belief on anyone else there's nothing wrong with him holding that opinion. What you need to understand is that having an opinion does not necessarily mean you will enforce that opinion on people; Ron Paul is too principled as far as individual liberty goes to do such a thing.

I've never heard of Rand opposing section 1 of the 14th ammendment; as a constitutionalist I find it hard to believe he'd ignore that. Though I could be wrong - if I am, give me a link where I can find out.

In case you didn't notice, the Pauls are fighting for more rights than anyone else in American Politics, and it's stupid to disregard them just because you disagree with a couple matters of opinion.

 

The US Supreme Court addressed the issue of "personhood" extensively in Roe v Wade where both sides of the issue (i.e. the pro-choice and anti-abortion attorneys) ultimately agreed that "personhood" was established at birth and not before based upon historical legal precedent. There was no dispute that the "preborn" were not "persons" under the US Constitution.

While everyone is entitled to disagree from a legal standpoint the Woman is a Person with Constitutionally protected Rights while the "preborn" are "Not Persons" and have no Constitutionally protected Rights. That was established by the Supreme Court and neither side of the "abortion" debate disagreed with this legal interpretation of the US Constitution related to the Rights of the Person (i.e. the Woman).

Ron Paul and Rand Paul like to ignore any Supreme Court decisions that disagree with their personal opinions and political agenda but then virtually all politicans do this as well.

 

So they hold an opinion - when have they ever said they were going to ignore the decision? It's not like President Paul would just overturn Roe v. Wade - that's beyond executive powers, and the Pauls are voraciously against that sort of thing.

You need to stop letting their opinions get in the way of that fact they are trying to ensure your liberties.

 

Actually Rand Paul, as a member of Congress, is attempting to overturn the Roe v Wade decision based upon passage of a statutory law.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...on-once-and-for-all/politics/2012/11/26/54644

Two points I'd make.

I hate it when the news media refers to either Ron or Rand Paul as "libertarians" because they're not.

Next I would point out that the US Supreme Court did not "legalize abortion" but instead struck down unconstitutional laws prohibiting abortion. The greatest mistake many make is that they believe that the Supreme Court "legislates" from the bench when, in fact, the Supreme Court "delegislates" from the bench by striking down unconstitutional law (i.e. laws that should never have existed in the first place).

 

I dont trust Rand Paul.I dont want him for president,the fact that he supported zionist and CFR member Romney,i trust him about as far as i can spit.I would much rather have Gary Johnson as POTUS in 2016 than Rand but the establishment will make sure he does not get elected as well like they did with Ron because like Ron,he is not a member of the evil CFR organization that Romney and Obama are.the only way Rand would get elected is if he became a CFR member.the fact he sold his father out and was willing to support Romney it would not surprise me if he became one though.

 

You can capitalize random words that aren't supposed to be capitalized all you want, it doesn't magically make them rights.

 

True, merely capitalizing words doesn't establish the "Rights of the Person" but it does emphasize them. Determine what is or what is not a "Right" is really quite simple though because its based upon a relatively simply definition that established the critiera.

A "Natural Right" that was proposed by John Locke was later referred to as an "Unalienable Right" by Thomas Jefferson and today is referred to as an "Inalienable Right" is that which is inherent in the Person (i.e. not dependent upon another person), which doesn't infringe upon the Rights of another Person.

While I don't always agree with everything Ayn Rand stated I agree with her statement that the fundamental Inalienable Right is the "Right of Self of the Person" and from that all other Inalienable Rights originate. The Right of Property of the Person established by Labor is founded upon the Right of Self the Person. The "Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression" is founded upon the Right of Self of the Person. The Right of Thought of the Person, protected by the Freedom to Exercise Expression of Opinion, is founded upon the Right of Self of the Person.

In my post I referred to the Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person but acceptance of this Right of Self of the Person goes back to the founding of the United States and was referenced in the US Constitution where it refers to "natural born citizenship" as a requirement for being president. Natural Born Citizenship based upon jus soli (Latin - Right of Soil) is an Inalienable Right of the Person as it meets the definition an Inalienable Right. It is not dependent upon the "parents" because it exclusively relates to the child (a person) and where they are born. The birth of a child does not infringe upon anyone else's Inalienable Rights nor does it create any infringements upon anyone else's Inalienable Rights.

The founders knew what the Inalienable Right of Citizenship based upon jus soli was but over time, because it wasn't being protected under the 9th Amendment, statutory laws were created that violated this Inalienable Right of Self of the Person and these violations ultimately resulted in the 14th Amendment that removed natural born citizenship from statutory infringement by defining it (born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof). When "natural born citizenship" was reviewed by the US Supreme Court in the case of the United States v Kim Wong Ark, where statutory law would have denied him US citizenship established by his birth in California, a State at the time of his birth, they reviewed the history of the Natural Right of Citizenship and confirmed that in the United State it has always been based upon jus soli. The 14th Amendment simply clarified that "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Citizenship" of the Person that was protected and that government could not infringe upon with statutory law.

As I've noted and documented Rand Paul opposes the Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person based upon Jus Soli as protected in the 14th Amendment because he would like to impose statutory control over it based upon the actions of "other" persons (i.e. the parents) but an Inalienable Right cannot be dependent or affected by the "acts of other persons" in any manner because it is "inherent in the person" by definition.

Basically Rand Paul opposes both the Inalienable Right and the US Constitution because of his nefarious political agenda. We can also note that his proposal that "Natural Born Citizenship" be denied for the children of immigrants based upon the statutory immigration laws would overwhelmingly only affect Hispanic immigrants and reeks of ethnic/racial prejuduce.

Of note this is a clear departure from "libertarian" political philosophy which opposes the immigration laws we have. The position of the Libertarian Party and libertarian philosophy is that immigration should be based upon the "Law of Supply and Demand related to Labor" (i.e. Capitalism) which requires laws reflecting "open immigration of labor" across the borders.

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration

Rand Paul opposes open immigration based upon the Law of Supply and Demand inherent in a free Capitalistic system. Rand Paul supports Crony Capitalism where immigration to fulfull the demands for labor is highly limited based upon protectionism (which is advocated by the Unions).

 

I was disappointed as well when Rand endorsed Romney, but I guarantee you Rand has more in common with you foreign policy wise than Gary Johnson. Research Johnson's foreign policy. He actually is quite interventionist.

 

Will Rand run, probably, will Cruz get the Nomination, probably.

 

Actually Rand Paul has a very limited expressed opinion on mititary interventionism when compared to Johnson.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rand_Paul.htm#War_+_Peace

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm#War_+_Peace

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rand_Paul.htm#Foreign_Policy

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm#Foreign_Policy

People can draw their on conclusions and I don't agree with all that Gary Johnson says. For example I opposed the war in Afghanistan because Afghanistan was offering a peaceful means for addressing Osama bin Ladin by offering to bringing him to justice before an impartial tribunal or international court based upon a criminal indictment. We don't know if that would have happened but we do know the offer was on the table and opposed to following up diplomatically that could have potentially prevented the war against Afghanistan the Bush adminstration rejected a possible diplomatic solution.

On the opposite end we have Rand Paul that opposes the United Nations which was an international organization dedicated to the resolution of international problems through diplomatic means.

There are problems with the UN that can be summarized by the use of "veto power" by the five permanent members for nefarious political purposes, the refusal of the UNSC to follow-up and enforces the Resolutions it passes, and the failure of nations, especially the United States from our perspective, to comply with their treaty obligations defined by the UN Charter. Both the war against Afghanistan and the war against Iraq violated the UN Charter as neither military action was authorized by enumeration in a UNSC Resolution. We see the failure of the UNSC to follow through on its obligations related to UNSC 242 that once passed has been fundamentally ignored. We see the UNSC addressing the "potential" for nuclear weapon development by Iran while ignoring the nuclear weapons in Israel, Pakestan and India. It is addressing the nuclear weapons in N Korea but the US also has the US military stationed on the N Korean border in S Korea and the US represents a nuclear threat to N Korea.

Here is the fundamental difference between the two.

Gary Johnson reflected many "libertarian" principles as governor of New Mexico but has only recently joined the Libertarian Party and he still has much more to learn. Gary Johnson is dedicated to libertarianism.

Rand Paul reflects some libertarian principles while openly rejecting others and he's a "Tea Party" Republican. Rand Paul is not dedicated to libertarianism.

 

Don't you think the reason he opposes open immigration is because it would be suicidal to implement it alongside a welfare state?

 

That is perhaps his rationalization but in truth Rand Paul actively supports crony capitalism and racism that is a primary reason behind the need for welfare programs to mitigate the effects of poverty.

 

No they weren't the only ones scrutinized, the problem was that a specific guideline was put in place in the Cincinnati office that groups with "teaparty" or "Liberty" were flagged for extra scrutiny.

And "the head guy", appointed by Bush, actually signed in for 11 meetings over three years, although he had received secret service clearance to attend 157 meetings.
Just because a person is cleared to attend a meeting, doesn't mean they attend that meeting, most of the 157 clearances were automatic clearances for department heads for regularly scheduled meetings.

I wonder, now that you know the facts, is your opinion changed, or don't you let facts affect your opinion?

 

This is absolute BS. The "Tea Party" and pseudo "Patriot" groups were never denied the ability to participate in the election process although that should never have been their goal as a "charitiable non profit" organization under 501(c).

501(c) status only does two things of importance.

1. It allows contributions to be tax deductable for the individual but donations for political activites should not be tax deductable.
2. It allows the organization to not disclose who the donors are but those contributing to political activities should be public information.

The denial of 501(c) status, which apparently never happened, would have merely resulted in disclosure of who the contributors are and would have prevented those individuals from making tax-deductable political contributions. When it comes to "politics" we, the American People, have a Right to Know who's contributing to political activities and those donations shouldn't be tax deductable.

The delays in approval in no why prevented these organizations from participation in the 2012 elections and the claim it did is blatantly false.

What can't be denied is that these organizations are trying to evade the tax laws related to election campaigns for nefarious purposes. I've gone to some of the websites of the organizations that were seeking 501(c) status and they're political action groups and not non-profit charities. I'm really PO'd that the IRS every allowed them to operate as 501(c) entities because they're not engaged in charitable endeavors. They're engaged in political brain-washing and nothing more.

They're bunch of crooks trying to evade the tax laws related to political campaigns and nothing more.

 

But you have no problem with the tons of liberal ones, eh? Got it.