Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 08, 2016, 10:00:51 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
98805 Posts in 2346 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Sen. Rand Paul (and dad Ron Paul)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Sen. Rand Paul (and dad Ron Paul)  (Read 27913 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #100 on: July 01, 2015, 11:19:44 AM »

I think you want your marriage recognized at least until estate taxes are repealed.  You would otherwise have to expressly designate someone on a whole host of topics, giving up even more privacy.  Does the surgeon want spousal privilege in criminal matters ended - or extended to all witnesses who have the perp's confidence?  This is Rand drifting back to his fringe roots, attracting no one new.  Accept gay marriage or attack it.  Ending marriage is not a winning Presidential platform. MHO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Paul is doing some kind of a radio ad for an investment company selling the idea of preparing for economic collapse.  Not too far out of message for the elder Paul, but not helpful to son Rand either.  Take a lesson from what Bill Clinton does (wrong), get out of the limelight.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ron-paul-radio-and-internet-ads-watch-out-for-the-coming-eco#.gho39Qxo1n
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38285


« Reply #101 on: August 10, 2015, 12:40:40 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/videos/10153262524826107/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38285


« Reply #102 on: September 17, 2015, 11:30:32 AM »

Two Cheers for Rand Paul: The Kentucky Senator Brought the Libertarian in Debate
On foreign policy and drug policy, he staked out distinct and forward-looking policies.
Nick Gillespie|Sep. 17, 2015 8:49 am

 At last night's GOP debate hosted by CNN (full transcript here), the Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul brought consistently brought libertarian—or at least libertarianish—perspectives on major policy debates. Whether that jumpstarts his presidential campaign is anybody's guess, but it was a bracing and welcome development.

On foreign policy and drug policy (including criminal justice reform), the senator stood out as the one Republican candidate who championed new directions rather than doubling or tripling down on failed policy after failed policy.

On foreign policy, Paul was essentially the only one advancing any sort of vision distinct from the failed interventionist thinking that has coursed through D.C. politics under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Despite a dubious claim by Donald Trump that he was the "only one on the dais" who was opposed to invading Iraq in 2003, Paul could say with conviction

I’ve made my career as being an opponent of the Iraq War. I was opposed to the Syria war. I was opposed to arming people who are our enemies.

Iran is now stronger because Hussein is gone. Hussein was the great bulwark and counterbalance to the Iranians. So when we complain about the Iranians, you need to remember that the Iraq War made it worse.

More important, Paul, who early on in his senatorial career talked forthrightly about the need to reduce not just the Pentagon's budget (U.S. defense spending continues to essentially equal that of all other countries), stressed that we need to rethink military interventions in the same way we think about domestic policy:

We have to learn sometimes the interventions backfire. The Iraq War backfired and did not help us. We’re still paying the repercussions of a bad decision....

We have make the decision now in Syria, should we topple Assad? Many up here wanted to topple Assad, and it’s like — I said no, because if you do…ISIS will now be in charge of Syria…

It's a damning insight that after two major wars that have failed either to advance U.S. interests or stabilize the countries in which they were waged that "we have to learn sometimes [that] interventions backfire."

Even liberal critics of Paul specifically and GOP hawkishness generally give Paul props. Writing at Slate, Fred Kaplan notes, "It’s a strange debate where Sen. Rand Paul comes off as the most sensible contender on the stage." Where Carly Fiorina said she wouldn't even talk with Vladimir Putin or other world leaders who are despots and a number of GOP contenders insisted they would tear up the Iran deal like some circus strongman tearing up a phone book upon entering the White House, Paul actually made sense:

Contrary to almost all of his rivals (and his fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill), Paul said that he would not “tear up” the Iran nuclear deal upon entering the White House. “Let’s see if the Iranians comply with it,” he said, in a tone suggesting that he was making an obvious point—which, indeed, he was.

Einstein once suggested that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. He might have been thinking about 21st century foreign policy, whether conducted by Republicans or Democrats. For all the folks who think President Obama is a shrinking violet when it comes to what he once called "dumb wars," the Nobel Peace Prize winner tripled troop strength in Afghanistan, tried to keep troops in Iraq after the withdrawal date negotiated by the Bush administration, intensified drone strikes in countries with whom we are not at war, bombed Libya without constitutional authority, has sent troops back to Iraq, maintained he has the right to kill even U.S. citizens without judicial review, and more.

Obama stupidly drew a "red line" in Syria that he was unwilling to defend and he may have actually urged Ukraine to stand down at Russian forces took Crimea, but such missteps don't mean he isn't essentially an extension of failed Bush foreign policy. Six years after leaving the White House, it's easy to forget what a colossal failure George W. Bush was in the foreign policy arena. Indeed, his abject failure on that score was among the reasons Obama was able to beat interventionist John McCain so handily.
Since entering the Senate in 2011, Rand Paul at his best has forcefully and directly counseled that America needs a different style of engagement with the world, one predicated less upon dropping bombs and more upon trade, cultural presence, and other forms of soft power. Last night, he rightly urged that regional players in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia (the indirect source of so much jihadism in the world), step up in their own corners of the world.

The other moment in which Paul flew his libertarian freak flag had to do with drug policy and criminal justice reform. Paul stopped short of endorsing the end of federal prohibition against marijuana, an idea that both enjoys majority support from Americans and is an obvious move after decades of a failed drug war. Instead, Paul couched his argument in 10th Amendment terms, saying that states should be allowed to experiment with different approaches to medical and recreational pot legalization, a radical idea among the Republicans on stage and drug warriors such as Hillary Clinton:

The bottom line is the states. We say we like the 10th Amendment, until we start talking about this. And I think the federal government has gone too far, I think that the war on drugs has had a racial outcome, and really has been something that has really damaged our inner cities.

Not only do the drugs damage them, we damage them again by incarcerating them and then preventing them from getting employment over time.

So I don’t think that the federal government should override the states. I believe in the 10th Amendment and I really will say that the states are left to themselves.

Paul was alone among last night's participants in touching on the racial disparities visited like a plague upon the country by the drug war. It's of a piece with his ongoing efforts to reach out to new constituencies for the GOP, especially lower-income minorities who bear the brunt of drug laws that are not only odious by themselves but are used much more intensely against blacks and Hispanics. Indeed, one of the most electrifying moments in the debate for me came when Paul told Jeb Bush, the son and brother of presidents and an argent drug warrior, to check his privilege:

Under the current circumstances, kids who had privilege like you [Jeb Bush, who has admitted to smoking pot in high school] do, don’t go to jail, but the poor kids in our inner cities go to jail. I don’t think that’s fair. And I think we need to acknowledge it, and it is hypocritical to still want to put poor people in jail.

Despite the drug war losing ground at the state level—a couple of dozen states allow medical marijuana and three allow for recreational pot with more sure to follow—it's a brave stance to embrace the idea that people might be free to choose their intoxicants. People seeking national office are far more likely to fall back on the cliches peddled by Carly Fiorina, who invoked her daughter who died from substance abuse and denounced pot legalization via the discredited gateway-drug theory.

As an independent voter and a small-L libertarian, I don't have a strong interest in partisan politics. That's probably because there's never really been a moment in my lifetime when either of the major parties came within a thousand miles of championing policies that line up with my beliefs and predilections. I remain far more interested in all the ways that the libertarian moment is proceeding despite pushback by Democrats and Republicans. The cultural and political forces of decentralization and the empowerment  of individuals to live lives of their own choosing will continue to grow whomever gets elected in 2016. Having champions in one or both of the major parties pushing libertarian ideas about limiting the size, scope, and spending of government at all levels could speed up the timing, but the move toward increased human freedom and flourishing won't be denied over the long haul.

But Rand Paul's performance last night, which included a pitch-perfect take on the minor issue of vaccines ("I’m all for vaccines. But I’m also for freedom) reminded me of why Reason dubbed him "the most interesting man in the Senate" when he took office. He is by no means without problems from my perspective (his muddled immigration policy, for instance, is longer on nativism than it is on a consistent embrace of individual rights and minimal government). Still, he was talking a different game than the others on the stage last night and whether he ends up as president is besides the larger point: His ideas and policy prescriptions reflect where the country is headed, whether establishment politicians want to go there or not.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38285


« Reply #103 on: December 27, 2015, 12:41:13 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/Rand2016/videos/873977232717476/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #104 on: December 27, 2015, 01:21:38 PM »


He points to failure and concludes his policy of doing nothing would have led to success.  Rand Paul is a master of oversimplifying foreign policy.  He draws all foreign policy questions into being one and the same.  He points to everything that went wrong and concludes that therefore that everything was fine before and doing nothing was the only alternative to failed, partial measures.

We have stayed out of Syria and the mess we didn't create is destroying Europe and the United States.  

We need smarter, wiser leadership that thinks through questions like the ones he raises.  Yes, all others have made mistakes.  His answers to it are worse.

American strength didn't cause ISIS to take Iraq.  Leaving irresponsibly is what preceded the ISIS takeover.  

Leaving Saddam in power in 2003 wasn't some great, wise solution.  By all measures, even the deniers, Saddam's Iraq would be nuclear by now.  Rand Paul would rather deal with that problem?  And then do nothing.

Rqand Paul's form of appeasement and non-intervention is our policy with Iran today, and they will be nuclear soon with our agreement.  Putin and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are filling the voids.  

ISIS controlling territory in Iraq and Syria today is a global threat, not some faraway problem that doesn't affect us.

Yes, sending arms blindly into a very complicated war zone without a force or a serious plan is a bad idea.  That doesn't mean the right answer on foreign policy always is do nothing.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 01:26:45 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #105 on: January 12, 2016, 11:11:33 AM »

Rand is out of the next main stage debate and thinks the undercard is beneath him.  He is polling 7th in Iowa and 7th in NH.

It's time to ask what went wrong.  He squandered his opportunity; what does that tell us?

He started with his Dad's base of a small number of really energized activists.  He went mainstream with it,  winning a US Senate seat and buddying up with Mitch McConnell to have some voice in important matters.  He looked to become a real force in the campaign and became more of an annoyance.

In the Senate he laid it all on the line for boogieman libertarian issues and never effectively made the case for the real ones, from my point of view.  He took his strongest stand against government drones targeting innocent US citizens on American soil.  I don't know what to think about that question except to say it isn't among my top one thousand concerns about liberties lost.  I don't want to be gunned down in my yard by an American government drone but see it as far less likely than being hit by a tornado.  More importantly I've lost other liberties that hurt me every minute of the day.

Rand Paul was leader of the movement for opposing so called 'metadata', a fight he won, but ending that 'threat' didn't get our privacy or liberties back, didn't make us safer and didn't win him anything with the electorate.

Rand Paul stood up with a Republican alternative foreign policy to the left of Barack Obama.  He removed some of the nuttiness from his Dad's positions, didn't rule out all interventions or conceivable foreign wars, but was by far the most anti-interventionist on the stage.  That did not connect with GOP voters.  When you combine it with cutting domestic spending by a trillion, it doesn't bring in crossover votes either.  Americans don't want another Iraq war but we also know that a world not led by America is a world headed to disaster.  Cutting defense spending isn't how you respond to ia world of increasing threats either.  Nor is arguing that those threats are way over there.

Cutting social spending is great but it isn't realistic unless you grow the economy first and grow it so widely and vigorously in a sustained way that people see that government is not their best engine of economic security.  Many things go into growing the economy, all starting with winning elections by spreading the message of economic liberty and growth.  Rand Paul's 17% flat tax might have been the best plan for economic growth, but had no chance of winning and you heard him promote it when?  He didn't have the focus to win.  Also, we have never grown the economy by neglecting national security.  The threats we ignore keep coming back to bite us.

Credit is due to Rand for attacking Trump on takings, and credit is due to our Pat for knowing that isn't enough to derail Trump.

Choose your battles.  Drone attacks weren't it, nor was the fight against metadata.   I've already ranted on my view of liberties lost.  But at this point it is more likely a Democrat who will connect with voters on some of those issues.  It will sadly become a case for the government interventionists to put limits the capture and storage of our personal data.  If Apple and Google weren't such reliable leftist supporters, the left would already be all over this.  Every app you download wants access to your contacts and everything else.

Obamacare became a word that we fight instead of the real invasion that it is.  So many things went wrong with it that we lost our focus on why the concept is so fundamentally wrong, the government knowing and controlling your most personal decisions.  Wickard Filburn comes to mind, where the government prosecuted the man for growing food for his own animals on his own property and the government locked in the authority to control everything else since then.  Like Kelo, that is too obscure for prime time perhaps but somewhere in there is a fight that Rand Paul and others lost sight of in the clash of the personalities of all the people who want to be President.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 11:34:32 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38285


« Reply #106 on: January 12, 2016, 11:36:02 AM »

I'm very glad he is in the Senate and sincerely hope he wins re-election there.

Some of his criticisms of our ME policy have considerable merit.  In practice arming and training this group and that, which we often do when we don't want to do something serious, often means we wind up fighting those guns and that training.  This is worthy of serious consideration IMHO.
 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8404


« Reply #107 on: January 12, 2016, 11:56:16 AM »

I'm very glad he is in the Senate and sincerely hope he wins re-election there.

Some of his criticisms of our ME policy have considerable merit.  In practice arming and training this group and that, which we often do when we don't want to do something serious, often means we wind up fighting those guns and that training.  This is worthy of serious consideration IMHO.

Agree.  In that sense he is like Trump, great at pointing out what has gone wrong and a bit lacking on coming up with the solutions.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 12:52:28 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!