Rand Paul Announcing Run For The Presidential Nomination

[PistolBob]

We need a congress and a President in 2016 that will be willing and able to undo a lot of the damage that the current administration and the last four congressional sessions have inflicted upon the people of this nation. That's a big ticket...not sure we're able to do it.

 

[MisterChester]

We need a congress and a President in 2016 that will be willing and able to undo a lot of the damage that the current administration and the last four congressional sessions have inflicted upon the people of this nation. That's a big ticket...not sure we're able to do it.

That doesn't go far enough. I say we need a president and congress that'll undo the damage over the past 3 or 4 decades.

 

[msmeek12]

Anyone who's not a Rhino or democrat would be good enough for me...but I do think Rand would do a good job. My husband likes his dad.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

That doesn't go far enough. I say we need a president and congress that'll undo the damage over the past 3 or 4 decades.

Such as? And is this something that you personally saw? Or is it what you've just been told about?

 

[jamil]

Yay for this. It will be the best Republican I've been able to vote for, for President, in my lifetime.

But I suspect that now, the media destruction begins in earnest. The long knives will come out.

The hedge fund people, left, academia, media...all want no part of somebody like this.

Rand Paul has a habit of using provocative language to express his ideas. He needs to stop that. It's just opposition headline fodder.

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.

Let's talk about Rand and his activist/populist judge bent. For those of you who haven't heard the entire speech here's a link.

Rand Paul: ?I?m a judicial activist.? - The Washington Post

The video is 22 and a half minutes, but the actual speech is just over 12 minutes, the rest is Q&A. I think it's worth the time to hear it.

When I first read the headlines on that, it made me very wary about him. But as he explains his point, it's pretty obvious that what you read in the headlines, and what he refers to as activism, isn't the "legislating from the bench" that most conservatives cringe at when someone speaks in favor of judicial activism.

On the substantive examples cases he gave, he sides much the same way I do.

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.

I don't see Rand Paul's opinion on judges a big flaw.

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.

Popular opinion should never be a standard for deciding if a law is constitutional. But it is often politically necessary. It was not politically necessary for Judge Roberts to *make* the individual mandate part of Obamacare constitutional. He did it because it was popular.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Rand Paul has a habit of using provocative language to express his ideas. He needs to stop that. It's just opposition headline fodder.



Let's talk about Rand and his activist/populist judge bent. For those of you who haven't heard the entire speech here's a link.

Rand Paul: ?I?m a judicial activist.? - The Washington Post

The video is 22 and a half minutes, but the actual speech is just over 12 minutes, the rest is Q&A. I think it's worth the time to hear it.

When I first read the headlines on that, it made me very wary about him. But as he explains his point, it's pretty obvious that what you read in the headlines, and what he refers to as activism, isn't the "legislating from the bench" that most conservatives cringe at when someone speaks in favor of judicial activism.

On the substantive examples cases he gave, he sides much the same way I do.



I don't see Rand Paul's opinion on judges a big flaw.

It's times like this, I really hate hsaving internet service with data limits. Im going to try to remeber to come back and watch this later.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Such as? And is this something that you personally saw? Or is it what you've just been told about?

Patriot Act - abolished
Civil Rights Act- Overhaul
IRS - overhaul
NAFTA - abolished
Gun Control Act - Overhaul

 

[MisterChester]

Patriot Act - abolished
Civil Rights Act- Overhaul
IRS - overhaul
NAFTA - abolished
Gun Control Act - Overhaul

This.

 

[MisterChester]

Such as? And is this something that you personally saw? Or is it what you've just been told about?

You don't have to see something in the flesh to know it is a load of garbage.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Civil Rights Act- Overhaul
IRS - overhaul
NAFTA - abolished
Gun Control Act - Overhaul

How about:

Patriot Act - abolished
Civil Rights Act- Repealed
IRS - 16th Amendment Repealed
NAFTA - abolished
Gun Control Act - Repealed

 

[miguel]

Geez Louise, they gonna roll out the guy who changes his oil next?

 

[MisterChester]

How about:

Civil Rights Act- Repealed
IRS - 16th Amendment Repealed
NAFTA - abolished
Gun Control Act - Repealed

I'm curious GFGT, if we repeal the 16th amendment then how would the government tax us? We can't really go back to taxing alcohol and such like in pre-16th amendment America.

 

[jamil]

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 don't really have animosity towards any of the candidates, except the FAPB (fat ass puss bag). So obviously he's down at the bottom of the list.

On, Santorum, I wouldn't call it animosity. I just don't think as President he plans to represent very many of my interests. He doesn't have enough going for him (really anything) that would cause me to overlook his religious causes.

Jeb is really smooth. But so is Obama. Jeb is probably the most electable in the bunch. Electibility matters to a fair extent, and smoothness helps with that. But ideologically, I get the feeling that he'd be a better president for the social justice voters than for the individual liberty voters. So he's a solid no.

Ben Carson is a reluctant no. I say reluctant because I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the guy, personally. I knew of him years before he made "the speech". And, unlike someone like Santorum or Cruz, he is a person of faith that I would readily trust not to impose his faith through government. However, though he's a smart man (the only brain surgeon in the pack), he's not learned enough in politics, and he does not reflect my beliefs in the area of individual liberty. He also had to be coached on what to say about guns. As you said, not presidential material. He will likely be devoured in the debates and by the press. Surgeon General, or Secretary of Human Services, he would be a first choice kind of contender.

Cruz. No. Sorry. Just no. No animus. I don't hate him. I often agree with the words he uses when he speaks about the constitution. However, the warning bells ring, danger whistles blow, red flags raise when he speaks, because of the context, or circumstances or whatever. I've seen a lot of people who rise to prominence because they know how manipulate people by saying just the right things. And they just have these predictable "tells" about them. And it may just be my perception, it's hard to articulate, but he has them. I would prefer that man not be running the country.

Huckster? No. Much like Santorum, I can see him almost exclusively appealing to socially conservative Christians, and no one else. He has nothing else to offer other than that. In the primaries, he'll help split the Santorum/Cruz vote. And that's the extent of his impact.

Rubio. I think it's hard for a lot of people to forgive him, suckered or not, he went along with amnisty.

Walker, I don't know enough about him. He seems to have a fairly wide appeal. Many social conservatives like him. Some fiscal conservatives like him. Even some traditional establishment Republicans like him. He may be able to put together a coalition to get him the nomination. So far he doesn't seem polished enough, and I just don't think he could beat Hillary. But as I said, I don't know enough about him.

My $6.02 worth adjusted for inflation.

 

[mrjarrell]

Live from Louisville.
[video=youtube_share;6kKDWtdUHP4]http://youtu.be/6kKDWtdUHP4[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The Rand Paul speech camera is attached to Building 7.

 

[jamil]

I'm curious GFGT, if we repeal the 16th amendment then how would the government tax us? We can't really go back to taxing alcohol and such like in pre-16th amendment America.

Well, we could go back to that. But the teats on that size of government are too small for most lips these days. However would upper middle class pay for their Teslas without government help?

I still would like to see my put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is tax plan enacted, along with constitutional supports to prevent it from morphing into what we have now.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Great, he's doing the "Two Americas" thing.

Here's the last guy to try that:

 

[jamil]

Great, he's doing the "Two Americas" thing.

Here's the last guy to try that:

I don't really see that as a fair message comparison.

 

[jamil]

Interesting choice of Edgar Winter Group.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Watching the speech, he takes Conservatarian values and makes them sound Liberal. That's a good thing. You could almost be fooled which party he's running for.

I think he has the most potential to bring out the voters. I hope his clouding of the divisiveness helps with the young vote, too. I'd hate to see someone like Jeb Bush get the nomination over Paul