HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I still do not trust Rand...

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 09:43 AM

I still do not trust Rand Paul and his pseudo, new found moderate attitude. eom

47 replies, 1733 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply I still do not trust Rand Paul and his pseudo, new found moderate attitude. eom (Original post)
mfcorey1 Aug 2014 OP
MineralMan Aug 2014 #1
Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #27
JaneyVee Aug 2014 #2
Pholus Aug 2014 #3
Gothmog Aug 2014 #4
malthaussen Aug 2014 #11
Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #29
FarPoint Aug 2014 #5
NuclearDem Aug 2014 #6
malthaussen Aug 2014 #12
ChisolmTrailDem Aug 2014 #23
NuclearDem Aug 2014 #25
Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #30
Manifestor_of_Light Aug 2014 #38
Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #44
Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #7
SummerSnow Aug 2014 #8
Faux pas Aug 2014 #9
djean111 Aug 2014 #10
lunasun Aug 2014 #13
mfcorey1 Aug 2014 #14
Bluenorthwest Aug 2014 #22
lunasun Aug 2014 #42
MohRokTah Aug 2014 #15
Savannahmann Aug 2014 #17
Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #31
MoonchildCA Aug 2014 #41
madokie Aug 2014 #16
Guy Whitey Corngood Aug 2014 #18
winter is coming Aug 2014 #19
Liberal_from_va34 Aug 2014 #20
mfcorey1 Aug 2014 #21
woo me with science Aug 2014 #24
Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #34
TheKentuckian Aug 2014 #35
bluestateguy Aug 2014 #26
woo me with science Aug 2014 #28
L0oniX Aug 2014 #33
L0oniX Aug 2014 #32
wandy Aug 2014 #36
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Aug 2014 #37
Manifestor_of_Light Aug 2014 #39
AgingAmerican Aug 2014 #47
ZombieHorde Aug 2014 #40
wheniwasincongress Aug 2014 #43
gollygee Aug 2014 #45
Cha Aug 2014 #46

Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 09:47 AM

1. Nobody should trust Rand Paul, or his dad, either.

Rand Paul is a lying scumbag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:02 PM

27. I trust Rand Paul.

I trust scorpions to be scorpions.

I trust psychopaths to have no conscience.

I trust KKKarl Rove to be KKKarl Rove.

I trust Rand Paul to be Rand Paul.

In the meantime, if he says a couple of rational things about cops or drug enforcement or wars, I take heart in thinking that there is some self-serving interest that he perceives in doing so, and that interest reflects the opinions of some of the otherwise benighted people to whom he appeals.

I take heart because perhaps, on those few issues, it is possible to form a very limited and specific common-cause alliance and actually make some progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 09:51 AM

2. Good call.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 09:54 AM

3. Election season is ramping up.

Triangulation demands that moderate statements be made.

Be happy, it means that their own polling is showing that Tea Party extremism is not the way to go if you want to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 09:55 AM

4. Paul is not to be trusted

the man is an idiot and a liar. I really think that Rand Paul thinks that he is brighter than we are and so he can get by with lies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:30 AM

11. Rand Paul read too much Heinlein as a youth...

... and understood none of it. He thinks he's Lazarus Long.

Or, not. But that's how I see it.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #4)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:03 PM

29. Well, he IS brighter than his followers.

It takes some brains to cheat your way through medical school, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 09:55 AM

5. Hell no I don't trust him...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 09:58 AM

6. I don't know, I kind of liked his last speech.

 

"And our little girl, Tricia, the six year old, named it Checkers...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:31 AM

12. LOL

Good thing I wasn't holding my coffee cup when I read that.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:18 PM

23. I a bit behind this morning, can you please explain why that's funny? Thx in adv. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:46 PM

25. Plagiarism.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #23)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:04 PM

30. Nixon, the Checkers speech

when he fought off scandal & stayed on Ike's ticket in '56.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:45 PM

38. Too bad Tricky Dick didn't keep his promise to go away.

"You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore". I think that was in 1960 after he lost to Kennedy in a squeaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 07:06 PM

44. I think '62 when he lost the governor's race to Pat Brown (Jerry's father).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:09 AM

7. He can say he is on different sides on many issues. He answers according to what he thinks the

listeners wants to hear. Like the method the Pauls take when placing ear marks on bills they know will pass then vote against the bill so they can say they never voted for spending increases and take the earmark and run back home saying look what I got for you. They have been involved on the dark side of civil rights, I still do not know or understand where Rand Paul stands on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:09 AM

8. I don't trust him either, he desperately wants the black vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:15 AM

9. Agreed! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:26 AM

10. I cannot imagine that anyone here at DU trusts him.

 

Although I have noticed that "Rand Paul Lover" is flung about sometimes, at people who do not care for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:33 AM

13. It works well on some of the younger voters...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:41 AM

14. Not when a Dreamer walks up and he takes off running like Wiley E. Coyote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:15 PM

22. If they are white, straight and unconcerned with women's rights, maybe.

 

But frankly, that sort is always running off with one Republican or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #22)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 06:01 PM

42. Yes and upper middle class and above weed smoking mesmerized by Rand novels young men

But they do tend to vote! Sad but true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:44 AM

15. IF nominated, he could win with his phony assed bullshit.

 

Fortunately, I doubt he'll be capable of getting past any of the primaries on the GOP side. He's alienated the Baggers completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #15)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:51 AM

17. I disagree

 

I think he will be the nominee. Here's why. First, he's a long time advocate for smaller government. The Tea Baggers love that, because it means less oversight to make sure they are being fair towards people. Second, he's an advocate for basically zero war, the pro peace people who are not tied to the Democratic party can contrast that with Hillary's slightly modified McCain style bomb them all stance and he'll peel a few off.

Then we get to the NSA and spying on the citizens. Paul is a long time advocate for serious restraint, and the privacy minded who are not Democrats first will peel off.

If he's nominated, we stand a good chance of losing the Presidential Election unless we run someone with a hell of a track record for Civil Rights and restraint.

Then there's the legalization of drugs. Paul is in favor of legalizing Marijuana. If he promises to do what only the President can, and pardon all those convicted of Marijuana offenses, he'll pull the legalization crowd big time.

See where I'm going? He's on the populist side of several issues. Perhaps not the wise side, but the populist side of several issues. So people want legalization, he'll give it to them if elected. People want their privacy respected. He'll give it to them.

Now what I think would happen if he got into office is he'd ramp all those things up and increase the spying, but enough people would say he wouldn't that he stands a very good chance of getting elected. If he figures out a populist message on immigration, he'll be tough to beat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:07 PM

31. I don't think he'll be the nominee

simply because the Big Guys don't want him. They need a warhawk, they need someone to keep the prison industry going, they need to keep the police forces open as a market for high-class weoponry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:16 PM

41. Which is why the neocons...

...and the industrial war machine will do everything in their power to destroy him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 10:45 AM

16. Trust rand paul at your own risk

in fact the word trust and rand paul don't belong on the same page. If the truth was known that is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:10 AM

18. He's still an imbecile. But I understand that the ferret living on his head has written

some interesting policy papers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:13 AM

19. I can't imagine ever trusting Rand Paul.

Or wanting to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:21 AM

20. Neither Ron nor Rand Paul are to be trusted whatsoever.

 

Their "policies" would turn our country into Somalia overnight. Sadly, too many people are focused on their policies on pot, and pretty much ignore the rest of their racist, backwards views. Thankfully, neither Paul will be in office anytime soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_from_va34 (Reply #20)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:24 AM

21. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:42 PM

24. Easy fix for Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025223923#post7

Corporate Democrats are obsessed with Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Republicans only because they expose those Democrats' betrayal of voters on the issues they should own. The only reason any Libertarians get attention at all is because they say some of the right things re: reining in warmongering, curbing the drug wars, and stopping the outrageous surveillance state. People do NOT like their willingness to scrap social programs and gut Social Security.

All Democrats would have to do is re-embrace the policies they were *supposed* to stand for all along. Stop the outrageous corporate war on marijuana and marijuana users. Stop pandering to the corporate One Percent with private prisons and draconian drug policies and a fascistic surveillance state. Be the party that not only ends the spying and the warmongering and the outrageous drug wars for profit, but also reins in Wall Street, restores our Constitution, reduces inequality, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.

Those who whine about Libertarians while excusing the corporate sellout of our own party are part of the problem. Third Way Democrats would not have to worry about Libertarians at all if they would crawl out of their corporate Masters' pockets for long enough to own the issues they SHOULD own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:08 PM

34. Absolutely on the money, Woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #24)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:14 PM

35. They have no such intention or even inclination, hence stuck hollering fuck some idiotic, pseudo

libertarian rather than owning his marketing hooks cutting him off at the knees and defusing him completely.

They seriously refuse to and when they find the public on the other side of them on civil liberties and the drug war and take a hit for it they will blame everyone on Earth but themselves, refuse to accept reality, and as always take it as a reason to become more reactionary and conservative.

It is already in evidence, there is no "we need to fix this, this the correct policy, these are our issues and we aren't going to let some snake oil salesman with a bad rug steal them out from under us", instead it is circling the wagons for the surveillance state, beating war drums, every excuse on Earth for continuing the failed and stupid drug war, and haughty derision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:00 PM

26. We don't have to trust him

But if he is right on an issue: no NSA wiretapping, no police militarization, then we should welcome his support.

Unfortunately, policies don't usually change unless at least some conservatives give their blessing. Just the way things are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #26)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:02 PM

28. Very well said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #26)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:08 PM

33. Broken clock ...blah blah blah ...I'll accept the 2 times it is right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:07 PM

32. I don't trust most of "all" the politicians.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:24 PM

36. Once a "neck stomper" allays a "neck stomper".................

I do not believe there is any "progressive" position this member of the libertarian branch of the GOP would not change, if the price was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:45 PM

37. But he's Glenn Greenwald's candidate

Something GG fans on this board tend to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:48 PM

39. Why is he worried about black people all of a sudden?

Before, he said he would not be in favor of the Civil Rights Act and argued that private businesses have the right to discriminate against anyone they feel like discriminating against.

This sounds like the usual craven opportunism.

His dad was a shitty doctor (ob-gyn) in Lake Jackson, Texas, back in the 1970s and I heard about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #39)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 07:17 PM

47. He called racism

 

"A bad business decision"

Code words for 'No problem with it otherwise'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:12 PM

40. I don't trust him either. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 06:08 PM

43. He denies he ever said this/believed in it



When will an interviewer show him this video? I want to see video of Rand watching himself and then trying to explain or blame away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 07:07 PM

45. You shouldn't

Rick Snyder played the same game here in MI and he sure turned around as soon as he was elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mfcorey1 (Original post)

Sun Aug 17, 2014, 07:15 PM

46. Rand Paul quoted on "misinformation".. Anybody that damn dumb..



So lying works, Senator? yeah, I'll just bet it does with all the fucking practice you have under your belt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread