Rand Paul just announced he's running for President

[RobDownSouth]

https://igcdn-photos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/10004088_960601433973428_456529828_n.jpg

 

[NeonSubtlety]

Does it matter? Is there really any chance he gets the republican nod?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Does it matter? Is there really any chance he gets the republican nod?

No, but only because of closed elections. In the states where it's open he could easily pull over substantial middle and even Democrat support.

 

[phrodeau]

YouTube’s copyright system has taken Rand Paul’s presidential announcement offline

If you're looking for Rand Paul's presidential announcement on YouTube, bad news. As of writing, the video has been blocked by the video streaming site, thanks to a copyright claim from Warner Music Group, as Vox's Andrew Prokop spotted.

...

During his announcement on Tuesday, Rand Paul entered and left to the song, "Shuttin' Detroit Down," as Business Insider notes. The song is a twangy lament about the state of the economy that dates back a few years; the copyright stamp on the YouTube video reads "(c) 2009 WMG." WMG, of course, is Warner Music Group.

Copyright law must be only of those things that Libertarians don't believe in right?

Hillary's announcement is still on Youtube, music and all.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Personally, I'd want Gary Johnson to run again. Rand Paul is kind of marginal, since he likes to blur the lines between social conservatism and social libertarianism, not a line that should ever be blurred. That's what the Tea Party has become, a way for the social cons and neo-cons to co-opt libertarians and gull them into backing their fascist candidates like Santorum and Bachmann.

 

[patient1]

I doubt if he has the temperament for the Oval Office, but I hope he's around for televised primary debates. In fact I hope he is a contender, so that they can't ignore him.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I doubt if he has the temperament for the Oval Office, but I hope he's around for televised primary debates. In fact I hope he is a contender, so that they can't ignore him.

He doesn't have the temperament to be interviewed by a woman on television. He's going to self destruct in a national campaign.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

*sigh* Rand ain't getting any better at dealing with the press.

Umm...nope.

He didn't run off. The guy said one more question which Paul answered & then the interviewer tried asking another question even though he knew that Paul had to start the CNN interview. Dana Bash from CNN even confirmed that they were the ones that shut off the lights, not Rand Paul's people.

Salon didn't even bother correcting their article after they got caught lying. There is no illusion of impartiality. At least Politico manned-up and posted a correction a couple hours later when they realized it was bullshit.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Breitbart 'n Mello_sixty_nine will be makin' excuses for RANDPAUL from now until he drops out of the race.

 

[Busybody]

sorta kinda cute how

thousands of emails DESTROYED etc is NOT an issue

but talking down to rude and lying reporters, is

 

[Busybody]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCZWuErWMAI2XNt.jpg

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Breitbart 'n Mello_sixty_nine will be makin' excuses for RANDPAUL from now until he drops out of the race.

I don't like the idea of the mainstream media manufacturing a story with the sole goal of tarnishing a candidate. I don't care if it's a Republican, Democrat or Independent. If this story was factual, I would not have brought it up, but this kind of shit was a blatant attempt to manipulate the populous. That is not the job of the media. They are supposed to report the news, not shape it depending on their political ideological leanings.

If you bothered to read the article, you can see the screenshot from Dana Bash's Twitter feed confirming that CNN, not Rand Paul's crew shut off the lights...but I guess facts aren't necessary when you have a hard-on for Hillary.

Here is the correction that Politico.com inserted into their original article. If Politico is not left enough for you, I can find other sources:

UPDATE (4:10p.m.):

Paul spokesperson Sergio Gor explains the situation in an email:

Senator Paul had multiple interviews and the reporter knew we had limited time, that's why he told the reporter that he had time for one more question. When that question ended, he had to move to his next interview. We did not turn the lights off, that was CNN producers who were taping an interview right after and need a different look for the room.

And here is the twitter post that CNN's Dana Bash wrote about the incident:

Dana Bash ✔ @DanaBashCNN
Follow
. @ZekeJMiller he did get annoyed w the guy but actually we turned lights off when he finished bc our intv was right after in same room
11:48 AM - 10 Apr 2015

 

[RobDownSouth]

If you feel RANDPAUL has the temperament to be President of the United States, that's your perogative.

I find him to be an especially thin-skinned demagogue, content to ride his daddy's coattails.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

If you feel RANDPAUL has the temperament to be President of the United States, that's your perogative.

I find him to be an especially thin-skinned demagogue, content to ride his daddy's coattails.

He's thin-skinned because of two interviews? He has two years to improve his interview-style. From the positions I've heard of his, he seems a lot more palatable than Hillary:

• Does not want the government having access to everyones cellphones. The NSA should not be allowed to write a single search warrant for every citizen.

• Believes that the President should not have a kill list for American citizens (terrorists or not).

• Wants the U.S. government to not spend more money than we take in. Wants a balanced budget amendment (I think he prefers the Penny plan that would erase the debt in 5 years.)

• He does not want local police forces to have access to military grade weapons & vehicles.

• Wants to reinstate the voting rights of released felons. (Introduced legislation with Democrat Cory Booker)

• Doesn't want to get into protracted wars with countries that don't pose a threat to our national security.

• Wants to introduce economic freedom zones to revitalize poor neighborhoods.

• He helped legalize Hemp in his State & has introduced legislation to get Hemp reclassified.

• Does not want people going to prison for non-violent drug offenses.

To me, nearly all of those positions seem like common sense positions. I don't think Hillary Clinton would support any of these positions which is the main reason why I don't think she'd be a good President.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'd be willing to guess Hillary supports the non-batshit crazy stuff on that list. A balanced budget amendment is a suicide pact that nobody will ever follow and any plan that would eliminate the debt in 5 years is an utter joke unworthy of consideration.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

I'd be willing to guess Hillary supports the non-batshit crazy stuff on that list. A balanced budget amendment is a suicide pact that nobody will ever follow and any plan that would eliminate the debt in 5 years is an utter joke unworthy of consideration.

Having 19+ trillion in debt is batshit crazy. So which specific positions do you think Hillary would come close to agreeing to?

 

[doctor_insanus]

This isn't the first time either. Does "Dr. Randy" have a problem with women more intelligent than him?

Hahahaha! Everyone knows that's impossible!

It's science.

 

[KingOrfeo]

• Wants to introduce economic freedom zones to revitalize poor neighborhoods.

How is that supposed to help?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Having 19 Trillion in debt is utterly meaningless. We have a strong economy and that's really the only thing that matters. It's sad that we've gotten to apoint where we're scared of stupid shit, but there it is.


• Does not want the government having access to everyones cellphones. The NSA should not be allowed to write a single search warrant for every citizen.

She's been nervous about this issue since as far back as 2002 but back then nobody wanted to appear weak on terror. I'm also curious how quickly Rand would fold on the issue when the presumably still Republican Congress simply said "nope, not happening." We give Obama endless shit for cases where that happened I don't see why Rand gets off.

• Believes that the President should not have a kill list for American citizens (terrorists or not).

The "kill list" only comes into play if there is an imminent attack. I don't think anybody wants a list of Americans to kill (terrorists or not) that Rand is full of shit here and Hillary would back the shit. Would you really vote for a man who didn't have the best available intelligence and/or wasn't willing to pull the trigger?

• Wants the U.S. government to not spend more money than we take in. Wants a balanced budget amendment (I think he prefers the Penny plan that would erase the debt in 5 years.)

Everybody agrees with this. However when the grown ups show up reality has a habit of kicking this to the curb. So yes she agrees here.

• He does not want local police forces to have access to military grade weapons & vehicles.

I'd bet on her supporting this.

• Wants to reinstate the voting rights of released felons. (Introduced legislation with Democrat Cory Booker)

Maybe, hard to tell. It's not happening either way. We know who in this country has felonies, the Republicans are never going to push to get a lot more minority voters so who cares who wants this or claims to want it. I'll tally this as something she doesn't want just because I've never heard her speak on anything remotely close to it.

• Doesn't want to get into protracted wars with countries that don't pose a threat to our national security.

I don't think anybody disagrees with this. The question being how does one define national security and who do you trust on protracted? Would he have had a problem had the Iraq War gone the way Bush said it would? Six months, in and out, new government and new friends? (That was terribly naive even at the time but that's not the point. If the Joint Chiefs come to Rand and say we can eliminate the Iranian Threat to Israel, install a friendly government in 9 months tops will he say no? I know I'm turning this around a bit but his exact wording is important. I don't even think Bush and Chenney wanted what eventually happened.

• Wants to introduce economic freedom zones to revitalize poor neighborhoods.

This is too ill defined for her to agree with or disagree with. I'll assume she disagrees simply because it's just words thrown together with no context whatsoever.

• He helped legalize Hemp in his State & has introduced legislation to get Hemp reclassified.

Probably. Like Obama on gay marriage and weed there are just things you don't say, especially as a Democrat. They are already "soft" on crime they do themselves no favors proving it. Rand has a little more safety to wiggle here.

• Does not want people going to prison for non-violent drug offenses.



Can't find her opinion on that off hand. I'll assume she doesn't agree until further notice.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

How is that supposed to help?

By Seth McLaughlin - The Washington Times - Friday, December 6, 2013
Sen. Rand Paul vowed Friday to push a proposal to create “economic freedom zones” in Detroit that would slash taxes and regulatory red tape in an attempt to revive the city’s economy.

Speaking at the Detroit Economic Club, Mr. Paul, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said that the model could be used in cities and counties across the nation and said that it would allow Detroit to hang onto $1.3 billion in tax revenue that otherwise would have been sent to the federal government.

“What Detroit needs to thrive is not Washington’s domineering hand, but freedom from big government’s mastery,” the Kentucky Republican said. “The answer to poverty and unemployment is not another government stimulus. It is simply leaving more money in the hands of those who earn it.”

SEE ALSO: ‘Momentous day’ for in-debt Detroit

Detroit recently became the largest municipality in the history of the nation to enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The city faces an $18 billion in debt and long-term liabilities.

Conservatives have pointed to Detroit as an example of what can go wrong when elected leaders pursue liberal policies and bow to the demands of labor unions.

Mr. Paul, though, said that both parties share some of the blame for Detroit’s economic woes and said that it is time to for Congress to try a new approach to getting the city back on its feet.

Mr. Paul promised to introduce the “Economic Freedom Zone Act of 2013” next week and said it expands upon ideas that former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp introduced decades ago.

“This is Jack Kemp’s enterprise zones on steroids,” he said.

The proposal would lower personal and corporate incomes taxes in Detroit to five percent and lower the payroll tax to two percent for employees and employers. It also would suspend the capital gains tax, in an attempt to spur greater investment in businesses and real estate.

“These zones free up Detroit to bail themselves out,” Mr. Paul said, adding that they also could help struggling communities across the country, including 20 counties in his home state. “Right now any community with 12 percent [unemployment] or more would be eligible for these freedom zones.”

Mr. Paul said his proposal is an example of how the nation can start moving away from big government bailouts that have not worked and start thinking differently about how best to tackle the nation’s most pressing problems.

He also said lawmakers should rethink the war on drugs and reshape the drug laws and court system that disproportionately punishes minority communities.

He said that that voting rights of some convicted felons who have completed their sentences should be restored and there should be a bigger push toward more school choice.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Having 19 Trillion in debt is utterly meaningless. We have a strong economy and that's really the only thing that matters. It's sad that we've gotten to apoint where we're scared of stupid shit, but there it is.

It is not utterly meaningless, especially when the CBO says that the interest on the federal debt alone will be $880 BILLION in ten years.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Having 19
• Believes that the President should not have a kill list for American citizens (terrorists or not).

The "kill list" only comes into play if there is an imminent attack. I don't think anybody wants a list of Americans to kill (terrorists or not) that Rand is full of shit here and Hillary would back the shit. Would you really vote for a man who didn't have the best available intelligence and/or wasn't willing to pull the trigger?

The kill list is blatantly unconstitutional. When American terrorists are caught on the U.S. they are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted through the court of law. Prior to the Patriot Act, we caught terrorists without violating the Constitution. We can do it again. Also, all that data collection did nothing to stop the Boston Bombing. Russian officials told us about those two douchebags before the bombing & we didn't follow up on it. That yearly 90 billion in Homeland Security funding is well spent.

This a very slippery slope. What happens if a President in the future decides to add names of American terrorists that are on U.S. soil? And what happens even further in the future when a different President decides to add Americans that are not terrorists on the list? We have a Constitution for a reason. The current President and future Presidents are not supposed to be able to pick and choose which parts to follow.


Hillary is emphasizing that her campaign will be a continuation of Obama's so I don't think she's going to agree to any of those positions, Barry didn't.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The kill list is blatantly unconstitutional. When American terrorists are caught on the U.S. they are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted through the court of law. Prior to the Patriot Act, we caught terrorists without violating the Constitution. We can do it again. Also, all that data collection did nothing to stop the Boston Bombing. Russian officials told us about those two douchebags before the bombing & we didn't follow up on it. That yearly 90 billion in Homeland Security funding is well spent.

This a very slippery slope. What happens if a President in the future decides to add names of American terrorists that are on U.S. soil? And what happens even further in the future when a different President decides to add Americans that are not terrorists on the list? We have a Constitution for a reason. The current President and future Presidents are not supposed to be able to pick and choose which parts to follow.


Hillary is emphasizing that her campaign will be a continuation of Obama's so I don't think she's going to agree to any of those positions, Barry didn't.

The "kill list" has nothing to do with the Constitution one way or the other actually. The Boston Bombing had to do A) with a failure of the NSA not of the kill list and I doubt the Kill list would have come into effect there anyway.

Who cares if he names them? None of that has anything to do with anything if you understand what the list is for. Add every American you personally don't like to the list and it won't make and difference. We have a constitution because we are too stupid to rewrite it at this point, nothing more.

Yes, Hillary will be a continuation of OBama and OBama is with Rand on most of that list. IT's like you didn't pay attention to anything he said or did over the last six years.

 

[Paendragon]

Thoughts...

I just checked his moneybomb total at RandPaul.com & it's rising at a fast clip. Currently at $274,000.

I'm intrigued by Rand Paul. I just hope he stays closer to his libertarian roots, and doesn't pander too much to the Republican base. In the general election, I think he would draw a lot of Independents, and even Democrats disenchanted with Clinton.

I'd love to see him come out with the nomination.

 

[about_average]

I'm not sure I trust Rand Paul.