Topic: GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist - page 70. (Read 205829 times)

McConnell also is intrigued by Paul's plans for 2016, when Kentucky's junior senator faces re-election to his Senate seat while potentially running for president.

It's a safe bet that Paul won't be the only member of McConnell's GOP caucus who considers trying for a move to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Does that require a tricky balance?

"(It's) not tricky at all," McConnell said. "Obviously, I'm a big supporter of Rand Paul. We've developed a very tight relationship, and I'm for him."

For president?

"Whatever he decides to do," McConnell said. "I don't think he's made a final decision on that. But he'll be able to count on me."

McConnell acknowledged that Paul's position "is complicated," since Paul's re-election bid could suffer from the attacks that come with a presidential run, but he said he would reserve any advice he has for Paul for their private conversations.

I think your narrative on what has been happening is quite skewed.

Rather than me explain it to you, and you not believe it, I suggest you read more than one newspaper and watch more than one television news station.  It would be even better if all are not owned by the same person.

By expanding your news outlets to those on both sides of the issue you can get a better idea of what is going on.  

Here are three I suggest, Fox News for the Repulican pump, Daily Show for calling total bullshit on Fox News for its blatant lies.  And the BBC for something more international and less biased.  Somewhere in between these three you can find the truth.      

Define "stonewalled" and "get away with", when Obama appears to have done everything he wanted to do short of exterminating all law-abiding gun owners (non-cronies that can't afford to coughbribecough campaign contribute). Poor, "stonewalled" "racist-victimized" Obama, didn't get to add millions more to his death tally.

BS, Obama is indistinguishable from, his content of character "bloody tyrant sociopath war criminal" just like, both parties' Caucasian presidents. Nobody elected a black president, if they did, a whole lot of innocents (not talking about aborted fetuses) would still be alive today.

Obama doesn't give a fuck about the "stonewalling" because when you're POTUS in modern times, you can commit any heinous crime you like, and not be impeached, or prosecuted for treason or any lesser statute.

Right now Republicans can get away from stonewalling Obama and then blaming him for all the problems. In large part just because his color.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, stopped by Detroit to boost the state's Republican candidates and tout his "freedom economic zones" proposal as a solution to the city's economic ills. Paul's proposal is consistent with Republican philosophy. It would reduce or eliminate federal taxes on residents and businesses located in Detroit and other distressed cities. It is a proposal that I made a decade ago and could hasten Detroit's return to being a dynamic urban community by decades.


The private sector builds and rebuilds cities, not the government. Look no further than the dramatic improvements resulting from private investments being made by Dan Gilbert in the city's downtown or the Ilitch organization and a host of small entrepreneurs in Midtown. The same is true in Detroit's neighborhoods where the private sector is made up of property owners and small businesses.


Paul's proposal addresses the city's major challenges of lifting the local economy through private investment without requiring any resources or tax dollars from the city. It is essentially a major federal grants program with no administrative costs that would dramatically increase Detroit's local tax revenues

...Consider a federal income tax credit of up to $500,000 for residents and $5 million for businesses. Residents would be drawn to the city for federal tax relief, increasing population and income levels and helping to stabilize struggling areas of the city. Businesses would be incentivized to expand or relocate to Detroit from all corners of the country, increasing the city's employment base and helping to alleviate an unemployment rate that is one of the highest in the nation.

Paul calls Dem Senator Candidates 'Hillary's losers' #hillaryslosers


He sure can troll with the best of them

more...http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/222999-paul-calls-dem-senators-hillarys-losers

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has branded losing Democratic Senate candidates "Hillary's losers."

In a post on his Facebook page, Paul posts pictures of Clinton together with Rep. Bruce Braley (Iowa), Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes, and Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).

Over each photo is the tag #Hillaryslosers.

Clinton had campaigned across the country for Democratic Senate candidates, and Paul is arguing their losses are a referendum on Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential rival.

"Today, voters sent a message to President Obama and Hillary Clinton, rejecting their policies and many of their candidates," the post says.

What does Rand Paul believe? His recent foreign policy address, a thinly veiled audition for his 2016 presidential candidacy, made one thing plain: Paul wants to scale back American involvement in foreign wars. To understand why, you have to understand where his ideas come from. Paul is the heir to a tradition, dating at least back to the 1890s, of conservative non-interventionism: the idea that it is not America's place to be involved in the affairs of the world. The history of this movement is complicated. So I spoke to Daniel McCarthy, editor of prominent non-interventionist magazine The American Conservative, about the non-interventionist movement's history — and its influence on Paul.

Paul doesn't call himself a non-interventionist. In his recent foreign policy address, he used the phrase "conservative realism" to describe his approach to the world. But according to McCarthy, the branding is Rand's attempt to make non-interventionism palatable to the modern Republican electorate, which has a pretty hawkish worldview. "Even though he likes the non-interventionist roadmap, he's willing to deviate from it if he thinks it's realistic in policy terms, let alone political ones," McCarthy says.

In practice, that means you'll see Paul defending some pretty aggressive policies (e.g., his declaration that "I support a strategy of air strikes against ISIS") even while staying on the non-interventionist side of the Washington consensus (e.g., opposing arming the Syrian rebels and ground troops). It wasn't always that way. In the past, Paul wouldn't have needed to qualify his non-interventionist position so much. The American conservative mainstream was once far more skeptical of the use of American force abroad than it was today.

This rising Republican star Rand Paul combines a dull, reassuring manner with a Ukip-like insurgent appeal. It could take him to his party’s presidential candidacy

Tim Stanley
1 November 2014

When America’s National Institutes of Heath said that it hadn’t cured Ebola yet because of budget cuts, Senator Rand Paul had an acidic answer. No, he told an audience of Republicans, the problem was not underfunding. It was bad priorities. ‘Have you seen what the NIH spends money on?’ he asked. ‘$939,000 spent to discover whether or not male fruit flies would like to consort with younger female fruit flies. $117,000 spent to determine if most monkeys are right-handed and like to throw poop with their right hands.’ And best of all, $2.4 million for an ‘origami condom’, which suggests something shaped like a swan. In fact, it’s modelled on the accordion.

This anecdote is a great introduction to Rand Paul — a libertarian with a sense of humour and a range of views that you’d imagine make him a pariah in the conservative movement. He is antiwar, wants a softer approach to tackling narcotics and has been a vocal critic of the national security establishment. Yet polling shows that he could be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016 because, like him, a lot of Americans are furious at the tragic farce that is their government. To understand the rise of libertarianism, you have to understand where Paul came from and where America is headed.

Key to Rand Paul’s success is that he looks normal. Say ‘libertarian Republican’ to many people and they picture a guy in a tinfoil hat who keeps one too many guns in his Wyoming tree house. Such a constituency indeed exists, and it worked hard for Rand’s father, Ron, when he ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and 2012. Ron Paul wanted to end the War on Terror completely and reduce government to a size that could be safely drowned in a bathtub. He blamed 9/11 on the government’s nannyish refusal to allow guns on aeroplanes. Rand inherited his father’s ideology and interest in medicine (Ron’s an obstetrician-gynaecologist, Rand an ophthalmologist). But where Ron’s crowd was loud and abrasive, Rand has done his best to cultivate a far more mainstream image.

We’re surprised at how many people ask why we, as Republicans, are working to change our criminal justice and prison systems. Why wouldn’t we?

We must change our current system – a system that drains tax dollars, destabilizes families and, worse, isn’t making us any safer. That’s why we have joined other Republicans, law enforcement officials, crime victims and many others in support of Proposition 47, a California ballot initiative that will prioritize incarceration resources for serious and violent crime, while investing savings in proven crime-prevention approaches.

This common-sense measure epitomizes an important trend in our country. There is a growing consensus among Americans from all political persuasions and walks of life that we must replace ineffective, unfair and expensive incarceration practices with new, smarter approaches to keeping communities safe.

The United States has 500 percent more people today in its prisons and jails than 30 years ago. Our general population certainly has not grown at this rate (it rose only 36.3 percent from 1980 to 2010); the real driver has been “tough on crime” laws that sent more people to prison for longer terms.

...

Sen. Paul (R-KY) has been to 30 states in the last 12 months leading up to the midterm elections to help U.S. Senate, U.S. House, gubernatorial, and state and local Republican candidates nationwide. He has keynoted state GOP conventions in Texas, California, Idaho, and Maine and rallied students at colleges and universities, ranging from the conservative University of South Carolina to liberal Berkeley to the bellwether Universities of Iowa and New Hampshire—and many in between.

He’s been leading inner city GOP efforts in Detroit, Chicago, and even the race-riot-rocked Ferguson, Missouri. Paul was the only national elected Republican who spoke at the National Urban League conference. Reince Priebus, the chairman of the RNC, also spoke there.
For someone who has not run for president—at least not yet—Paul’s probably been the GOP’s most visible and most sought after surrogate this year.

“We’ve been getting a lot of requests, and people reach out because they think we can get voters beyond the Republican Party, we can reach independents, and in the last final days of elections, elections go one way or another based on undecideds,” Paul said. “That’s where the real power is in politics—in those who can sway the uncommitted. I think a lot of the invitations we’ve gotten, frankly, are because they think we can have influence on the independent voters.”

If you have ever been to or traveled through Arnolds Park, Iowa, chances are you have seen or at least heard of Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food. Known for it’s large portions and low prices, this family-owned, cash-only restaurant has become a staple for those living in Dickinson County.

Carole Hinders has made an honest living owning and operating Mrs. Lady’s for the last 38 years. But in August of 2013, everything she saved—roughly $33,000—was seized by the Internal Revenue Service. Hinders has not been charged for tax evasion, or money laundering—in fact, one year later, she still has not been charged for any crime at all. The IRS claims her bank account was seized solely because she was depositing less than $10,000 at a time. Last time I checked, making small cash deposits into a personal checking account is not a crime.

According to the New York Times, the IRS seized Hinders’ honest living by enforcing an "increasingly controversial" law known as civil asset forfeiture. This law allows property to be seized if it is suspected of being connected to criminal activity. The problem is, law enforcement is not required to explain what the criminal activity is, much less prove that the person is guilty of such activity.
...
When I took office, I swore to uphold the Constitution and protect our Bill of Rights. This is why I have introduced the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment’s role in seizing property without due process of law.

The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property—so that honest, hard-working Americans like Carole Hinders are not left broke or trapped with debt.

Under the FAIR Act, state law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General's Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury's General Fund.

The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime. The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime.

I will continue to do all I can to protect the rights of Americans and ensure that their Fifth Amendment rights are no longer infringed upon.
...

...
Paul is willing to use military force to contain and deny a territorial base to the kinds of Islamic radicals who attacked the United States on 9/11.
...

...
It is necessary to present an alternative to the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus that has caused the United States to bounce from one ill-conceived military intervention to the next, with results that range from inconclusive to disastrous. Since the most extreme version of that consensus dominates Republican thinking, it would be optimal for the alternative to take root in the GOP.

To be a real alternative, it cannot simply be another set of views some Republicans could conceivably hold. It must be politically viable, palatable to sufficient numbers of the GOP nominating electorate to successfully put forward more than the occasional House backbencher.

Furthermore, this foreign policy must command enough assent from governing elites that qualified professionals would exist to implement it in the event sympathetic politicians were elected. And it must be a foreign policy that could actually work, not one that waves away genuine national-security threats or pretends that United States could become Switzerland.

That means politically this foreign policy must be able to galvanize the biggest constituency for peace within the Republican Party—the libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and other noninterventionists who backed Senator Paul’s father in the last two presidential campaigns. At the same time, it must be accessible to a larger swathe of the Republican rank-and-file.
...
So what does Paul’s alternative foreign policy actually look like? He is skeptical of wars for regime change that seek to overthrow regional bad actors like the governments of Iraq or Libya, and also of arming rebels in an effort to influence the outcomes of civil wars in which there is no obvious pro-American side.

Paul is willing to use military force to contain and deny a territorial base to the kinds of Islamic radicals who attacked the United States on 9/11. But he also recognizes that some interventions can end up empowering those radicals: directly by inadvertently helping weapons fall into the hands of the very people we are trying to defeat or creating power vacuums they can fill, or indirectly by inflaming anti-Western passions that help terrorists recruit.
...
Yet with Hillary Clinton looming as the likely Democratic nominee and most other Republican presidential hopefuls still singing from the same Bush-era song sheet, a lot is riding on whether Paul can resurrect conservative realism.
...

By Steven Nelson Oct. 27, 2014 | 3:10 p.m. EDT + More

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., may follow in his father’s footsteps not only by seeking the Republican presidential nomination, but also by receiving the Libertarian Party’s ballot line.

Members of the Libertarian Party are bracing for an internal struggle over whether to back the libertarian-leaning senator if he appears poised to win the Republican nomination in 2016.

Paul is unlikely to directly seek the third party’s support, but could win it anyhow through the work of eager activists like those who worked the campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP presidential contender in 2008 and 2012 and the Libertarian nominee in 1988.

A co-nomination from one of the nation’s most significant minor parties could help Paul - if he’s the Republican nominee - avoid losing hundreds of thousands of votes to an ideological ally. In some states, his name would appear twice on ballots.