Rand Paul Announcing Run For The Presidential Nomination

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Looks like the pandering and backpedaling have begun. And he hasn't even announced yet.

Rand Paul, a 'Judicial Activist' in January, Is Now a Populist Judge Basher - Hit & Run : Reason.com

The one criticism I have of Rand at this point, is he seems to be too coy in trying to be "adaptable" in some of his positions. More than once, I've heard him make some strange point in one venue and when questioned about it, he manages to turn the previous position into some more acceptable (to me) position. It will be interesting when he has to go on the record and see where his Constitutional disposition really lies.

 

[Cerberus]

The one criticism I have of Rand at this point, is he seems to be too coy in trying to be "adaptable" in some of his positions. More than once, I've heard him make some strange point in one venue and when questioned about it, he manages to turn the previous position into some more acceptable (to me) position. It will be interesting when he has to go on the record and see where his Constitutional disposition really lies.

I think it is well established where his Constitutional dispositions are. That is the reason the anarchists and status quo conservatives hate him.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I think it is well established where his Constitutional dispositions are. That is the reason the anarchists and status quo conservatives hate him.

Spot on - he is not a PURE anarcho-libertarian enough for some, and he's too libertarian for the social issue first Republicans - think Santorum here. He's also not going to be the favorite among establishment Repubs - the Jeb Bush/Rush Limbaugh crowd. The Paul/Cruz/Carson wing of the party will be interesting to watch. Whichever of these guys pulls through will be the one to watch for many of us. I think that wing of the party is growing faster than some would like to believe.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think it is well established where his Constitutional dispositions are. That is the reason the anarchists and status quo conservatives hate him.

Spot on - he is not a PURE anarcho-libertarian enough for some, and he's too libertarian for the social issue first Republicans - think Santorum here. He's also not going to be the favorite among establishment Repubs - the Jeb Bush/Rush Limbaugh crowd. The Paul/Cruz/Carson wing of the party will be interesting to watch. Whichever of these guys pulls through will be the one to watch for many of us. I think that wing of the party is growing faster than some would like to believe.

With that discussion of his activist/populist judge bent, are you really sure where he stands? Does he like judges that will decide cases on original intent and adherence? Or does he champion those that pick the side that reflects popular opinion of the day? I, for one, would find if it were the latter, to be a serious problem.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

He's going to make the announcement via chemtrail lettering.

 

[PistolBob]

He's already done and hasn't even started.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Clever.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

With that discussion of his activist/populist judge bent, are you really sure where he stands? Does he like judges that will decide cases on original intent and adherence? Or does he champion those that pick the side that reflects popular opinion of the day? I, for one, would find if it were the latter, to be a serious problem.

While I would find that to be a serious problem - please show me one candidate for Pres that is LACKING a serious flaw? I see that as a lot less of an issue that Hillary (or any Democrat that I have seen) . I have one simple rule - the person has to have enough name recognition to qualify. If less than 50% of the people don't even recognize the name - that's prohibitive. Otherwise I'll consider anyone. Christie? no way in Hades. His flaws are WAY worse. Santorum? way too far to the social right - WITHOUT good fiscal side to back it up. Jeb's smart enough - but his flaws are way greater than the activist judge thing. I like Johnson - but the average Joe on the street has to know who he is. If the first thought when someone says "Johnson" is to check your zipper - well, Houston you have a problem. Cruz lacks the temperment for me right now. I like Carson -but his baggage remains to be seen. For right now - Rand's the best hope in the field. Subject to change as we see others arrive and depart, flaws get uncovered, etc.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So, he announced. He's running with the "Dr" angle, changed his Twitter name to include "Dr."

He's hosting logos for graphic designers

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/585438075460820995

Error, however... hosting as dropbox assets. I'm sure he'll get that fixed..

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While I would find that to be a serious problem - please show me one candidate for Pres that is LACKING a serious flaw? I see that as a lot less of an issue that Hillary (or any Democrat that I have seen) . I have one simple rule - the person has to have enough name recognition to qualify. If less than 50% of the people don't even recognize the name - that's prohibitive. Otherwise I'll consider anyone. Christie? no way in Hades. His flaws are WAY worse. Santorum? way too far to the social right - WITHOUT good fiscal side to back it up. Jeb's smart enough - but his flaws are way greater than the activist judge thing. I like Johnson - but the average Joe on the street has to know who he is. If the first thought when someone says "Johnson" is to check your zipper - well, Houston you have a problem. Cruz lacks the temperment for me right now. I like Carson -but his baggage remains to be seen. For right now - Rand's the best hope in the field. Subject to change as we see others arrive and depart, flaws get uncovered, etc.

Funny how different people see the flaws of the candidates differently.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Funny how different people see the flaws of the candidates differently.

Fair enough - who do you see with less in the way of flaws? It's all good - this will be a long vetting process - and we don't have anywhere near the whole picture yet. I respect your opinion - and I'm curious to hear who you think is the better bet at this point

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Fair enough - who do you see with less in the way of flaws? It's all good - this will be a long vetting process - and we don't have anywhere near the whole picture yet. I respect your opinion - and I'm curious to hear who you think is the better bet at this point

For me, it's a toss up between Cruz and Paul. If I had to pick "a guy" RIGHT NOW!, I'd lean towards Cruz. Christie is a "no way"; Santorum--I don't have the animosity towards him others do but he's yesterday's news and it's time to move on. Jeb? Too establishment + we've already had 2 Bushes and while I think they were decent human beings, they're not the Constitutionalists I'm wanting to see. Never cared for Johnson. In fact anybody that has among their leading campaign points are "gay rights" and legalizing marijuana is not a serious candidate, in my book. Now, if you want to be president of the US and support the fact gay rights and marijuana ought to be up to the states to decide and should not be the federal government's business, OK, I'll listen. Carson is a good person, I think. He was probably one heck of a surgeon. But I don't believe he's presidental material.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Maybe by the first debate, we'll have a full menorah!

 

[MisterChester]

With that discussion of his activist/populist judge bent, are you really sure where he stands? Does he like judges that will decide cases on original intent and adherence? Or does he champion those that pick the side that reflects popular opinion of the day? I, for one, would find if it were the latter, to be a serious problem.

Popular opinion always has something to do with interpretation. It may not be the determining factor but it always plays a part. Many things have changed because of popular opinion. However I really don't know how far it's meant to go when the constitution was ratified. I would imagine that the framers anticipated that it would be a factor, they did kick the slavery issue can down the road after all. There will be future issues that are unknown to us now that will have to involve the Constitution at some point. I am of the belief that the constitution should be strictly followed, but to some extent it is a living and breathing document too.

 

[CindyE]

I'm happy to see Rand Paul running. Not optimistic at this point, way too early to tell.
Don't like Christie, and I don't think Jeb can do it, just because too many people are anti-Bush.
Paul is my favorite, Cruz 2nd.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

For me, it's a toss up between Cruz and Paul. If I had to pick "a guy" RIGHT NOW!, I'd lean towards Cruz. Christie is a "no way"; Santorum--I don't have the animosity towards him others do but he's yesterday's news and it's time to move on. Jeb? Too establishment + we've already had 2 Bushes and while I think they were decent human beings, they're not the Constitutionalists I'm wanting to see. Never cared for Johnson. In fact anybody that has among their leading campaign points are "gay rights" and legalizing marijuana is not a serious candidate, in my book. Now, if you want to be president of the US and support the fact gay rights and marijuana ought to be up to the states to decide and should not be the federal government's business, OK, I'll listen. Carson is a good person, I think. He was probably one heck of a surgeon. But I don't believe he's presidental material.

I think you and I agree more that we disagree. I can't argue with your analysis. Cruz worries me with his combative nature. That's a great quality in this Congress. In a President - less so. I see Paul as the more methodical and reasoned of the two - and yet driven by principle. Agree with your take on Johnson as well. The key questions we need to be asking are - what are your priorities? And if it isn't "adhering to the Constitution and shrinking government" or something up that alley , we need to be concerned. Divisive social issues need to take a back seat for a while. Not that they aren't important - but we first need to heal the nation from the damage inflicted over the last years.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think you and I agree more that we disagree. I can't argue with your analysis. Cruz worries me with his combative nature. That's a great quality in this Congress. In a President - less so. I see Paul as the more methodical and reasoned of the two - and yet driven by principle. Agree with your take on Johnson as well. The key questions we need to be asking are - what are your priorities? And if it isn't "adhering to the Constitution and shrinking government" or something up that alley , we need to be concerned. Divisive social issues need to take a back seat for a while. Not that they aren't important - but we first need to heal the nation from the damage inflicted over the last years.

Agreed. We need to enter a "leave each other the hell alone" phase for awhile.

 

[Dead Duck]

So what does this "Paul" guy think about going to war when needed.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Well if you want to be retweeted by a Presidential candidate, now's the time. He asked you to print out an "I stand with Rand" image, take a "selfie", and tweet it.

He's RT'ing people now.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well if you want to be retweeted by a Presidential candidate, now's the time. He asked you to print out an "I stand with Rand" image, take a "selfie", and tweet it.

He's RT'ing people now.

At the risk of sounding like a snarky smart-***...but I'm guessing that is a good thing but I'm not sure why.