Topic: GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist - page 80. (Read 205816 times)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday filed an amendment in the Senate that would protect states that implement medical marijuana laws, as well as patients and physicians in those states, from federal prosecution.

Paul's Amendment 3630, filed Thursday morning to Sen. John Walsh's (D-Mont.) jobs bill being heard on the Senate floor, allows states to "enact and implement laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana for medical use" without fear of federal prosecution. There are 33 states that have enacted laws protecting some form medical marijuana.

The amendment also prohibits prosecution of patients and physicians in those states for violating federal laws against the drug.

"What we're trying to do is look at the law and allow states that have changed their laws and have allowed medical marijuana to do so, for doctors to be able to prescribe and for people to be able to get those prescriptions without being worried about the federal government coming in and arresting them," Brian Darling, Paul's communications director, told The Huffington Post.

...

Republican U.S. Senator Rand Paul speaks before the National Urban League this Friday to outline an agenda relevant to minorities.

In a one-on-one interview with WFPL Thursday morning, Paul previewed a speech that will focus on criminal justice reform, school choice, and economic freedom zones.

"I think all of these have relevance to really the agenda of the Urban League and the things the Urban League would like to pass," said Paul. "The things we're doing to try to restore voting rights to make the war on drugs less of a burden on one community are all things people in the Urban League both support politically and hopefully the audience will as well."

Over 8,000 participants are convening at the conference in Cincinnati to discuss jobs and economic opportunities for the black community.

Paul will deliver his message a day after Vice President Joe Biden addresses the civil rights group, providing the GOP lawmaker with a national audience in his continued effort to build the case for black voters to give Republicans a chance.

...

maybe they think rand is electable, so they're trying to find a way to burrow into him.. which means influence him so much that he can act out on your policy/behalf.

i know one thing is for certain: outside of rand, there is no one else in the GOP party that is enticing to your average voter.

I'm not saying the media isn't influential but Rand is a master at carving out his own spot via policy or rhetoric-wise to ironclad himself from much of the gotcha nonsense that the media is used to getting away with. Furthermore, as he plays the downturned economy and everything else popping up in the "news" to perfection, there's not much the media can do besides ignore him but he's still able or has shown he's able to run a news cycle by himself. Also, it's obvious to many media personalities that he's not some far right wing extremist but more of populist guy in touch w/ the average person and have liked him for that despite everything else we normally think about them. Basically, his version of libertarianism that he's developed for his public character is much more focused yet more hip and trendy than that of his dad so it resonates more easily and far reaching. The polling speaks for itself and it's not easy for them to ignore who's on top on a regular basis. He's clipped off many of the rough edges of doctrinaire libertarianism and sticks with what is popular and workable, not some pie-in-the-sky all or nothing ideologue missionary/educational approach like that of the old man whom I supported to the max. To recap, Rand's political team is top shelf, his messaging is ahead of the curve for what's going on in today's America and beyond, the people are in a more populist mood and the media is observing that. The ignore factor won't work on Rand like it did on his old man, times are way different now and the GOP is in shambles while the average republican wants someone who can win. I've been trying to showcase why that person is Rand.

With the world in turmoil, foreign policy is shaping up to be one of the most important issues facing potential 2016 presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton, who enthusiastically bullied Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as Secretary of State, is now trying to sound more hawkish than President Barack Obama on the Israel-Hamas conflict. The real political winner in the conflict, however, has been Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

That is because Israel is acting with greater independence than it has in decades, ignoring Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry as they push for a ceasefire that most Israelis see as premature.

In previous rounds in Gaza, the Israeli government had to weigh carefully the risk that it might alienate the White House if it pressed too hard for victory. By now, however, there is no risk: the Obama administration is effectively on the other side.

Increasingly, Israelis have had enough, and more are arguing that they should stop relying on American aid. In 2013, as Breitbart News noted, some Israelis were prepared to make that argument privately. Now, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast reports, many are making it publicly, including some of Israel's nationalist politicians. They want Israel to stand on its own--and to be free to act in its own interests in moments of crisis, such as today.

That development is a huge boost to Sen. Paul, who has long argued for cutting U.S. aid to Israel--as well as to all other nations. In a 2013 visit to Israel, Paul moderated that view somewhat, recognizing Israel's strategic importance and allowing that Israel should be the last nation to be cut from the U.S. foreign aid budget. Yet he has still argued that both the U.S. and Israel would be better off if Israel were less dependent on American aid.

That view is abhorrent to many pro-Israel activists in Washington. Leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), for example, reject Sen. Paul's position outright. They argue that American military aid to Israel is a boon to both countries, boosting security and advancing technology. For AIPAC, politicians such as Chuck Hagel may even be excused their otherwise anti-Israel views as long as they vote for the annual aid bill.

Yet an increasing number of conservatives, both in Israel and the U.S., are arguing that as much as military aid helps in the short term, funding Iron Dome missile batteries and the like, it comes as a strategic cost to Israel--as well as a fiscal cost to American taxpayers.

President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal aliens via the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and other executive orders is a “magnet” for illegal immigration, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Breitbart News on Tuesday.

“All of that is a magnet and a beacon for people to come,” Paul said when asked about Obama’s executive immigration orders during a brief interview outside the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) headquarters. “You can’t have any kind of beacon without securing the border first. It really illustrates what conservatives have been saying all along, myself included: You can’t vote for immigration reform, you can’t have immigration reform without first securing the border.”

Paul added that the “whole idea that the president unilaterally offered these areas of forgiveness for the kids—this DREAM kind of forgiveness—the problem is if you do that with an open border, then the whole world will come.” Paul called for the border to be secured, and said that no immigration legislation should be considered unless the border is secured.

“So I think if we’re going to do immigration reform, what we really need is to have the border secure first,” he said. “What it really illustrates for me is that you can’t fix things by offering forgiveness without securing the border first. It’s a big problem. I think we should humanely clothe, feed and give water and sustenance then send them back home to unify them with their families.”

Paul endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz’s bill that would block Obama from implementing any more executive amnesty by halting funding for production of any documents needed for him to do so, too. “I think he wants to do exactly what I was saying, basically,” Paul said when asked about Cruz’s bill. “You can’t have the beacon first and he wants to overturn the president’s executive action—and I would support that.”

Asked whether the U.S should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, just 17 percent answered in the affirmative. Thirty-one percent said the current policy is correct and 34 percent said the U.S. should be less involved. The poll was completed before the downing last week of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, the civilian airliner that was apparently attacked over eastern Ukraine.

(Full POLITICO poll results)

More than three-quarters of likely voters say they support plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016. Only 23 percent oppose the plan.

Forty-four percent of likely voters favor less involvement in Iraq’s civil war, versus 19 percent who favor more involvement and 23 percent who say the current level of involvement is appropriate.

The foreign policy and national security results in the poll could be even more significant for the looming 2016 presidential contest than they are for this year’s House and Senate elections. Republicans have already begun drawing lines of internal debate around defense issues; several potential candidates, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, have emerged as interventionist voices, while Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is his party’s chief skeptic of foreign engagement.

...Rand will be too popular...   ?
The "talking heads" on TV (and radio) still have a ton of influence with people who vote. For now, they are treating Rand decently and hopefully that will continue, but....

Why?
If the media is "corrupt and controlled" why give Rand Paul a shot at early front-runner?
If the "game is rigged", then what are they trying to gain by allowing the libertarian movement a chance to grow?

...Rand will be too popular...   ?
The "talking heads" on TV (and radio) still have a ton of influence with people who vote. For now, they are treating Rand decently and hopefully that will continue, but....

Why?
If the media is "corrupt and controlled" why give Rand Paul a shot at early front-runner?
If the "game is rigged", then what are they trying to gain by allowing the libertarian movement a chance to grow?

Yeah, I guess it would matter as to whom the America people are sick of more, the Bushes or the Clintons (I'm not really even sold on her running yet). But frankly, I can't see the GOP base turning out it in droves for a Bush and Rand will be too popular for people to settle on Bush as the nominee.

I think bush has the best chances of winning as his family is one of the more politically powerful families in America.

I think bush has the best chances of winning as his family is one of the more politically powerful families in America.

^^Paul Ryan is an establishment hack who pretends to be "fiscally conservative" and I wouldn't trust him to make any real changes.

I would vote for Pual Ryan. He is a solid conservative who is fiscally responsible.

I think he is referring to Jeb Bush. He is not very old. Either way no one named Bush will win a national election any time soon.