Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TBF

(32,047 posts)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 12:48 PM Aug 2014

Keeping it Factual: Rand Paul's Voting Record

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:31 PM - Edit history (2)

If folks are determined to talk about Rand Paul as a progressive let's at least keep it factual.

Here is his actual voting record: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/117285/rand-paul#.U_tm_mPTf_k

July 31, 2014 HR 5021 Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 Senate
(81 - 13) Nay

July 30, 2014 S 2569 Bring Jobs Home Act Cloture Not Invoked - Senate
(54 - 42) Nay


July 16, 2014 S 2578 Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014 Cloture Not Invoked - Senate
(56 - 43) Nay


July 9, 2014 PN 1736 Nomination of Julian Castro to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Nomination Confirmed - Senate
(71 - 26) Nay


It goes on and on ....

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Keeping it Factual: Rand Paul's Voting Record (Original Post) TBF Aug 2014 OP
I dont know how people can think he is progressive, but I know some do. BaggersRDumb Aug 2014 #1
Thanks - I made the edit TBF Aug 2014 #4
He'll lower taxes on the upper-middle class BainsBane Aug 2014 #2
(your thread title should read: Rand Paul's voting record) cyberswede Aug 2014 #3
K/R! Orrex Aug 2014 #5
Rand (the neck stompper) Paul.............. wandy Aug 2014 #6
He would be a disaster for human beings, woo me with science Aug 2014 #7
+1 leftstreet Aug 2014 #8
And, this ... 1StrongBlackMan Aug 2014 #14
... and that's the only time you'll ever see "Rand Paul" and "factual" in the same sentence. n/t winter is coming Aug 2014 #9
... TBF Aug 2014 #17
Don't forget what a great opportunity he saw in hurting millions of Americans: freshwest Aug 2014 #10
Just like his daddy. riqster Aug 2014 #11
Yup they are both bad - TBF Aug 2014 #13
Lots of single-issue voters seem to be Paulbots. riqster Aug 2014 #15
Here are a couple more of this lovely votes: geardaddy Aug 2014 #12
If factual mattered jeff47 Aug 2014 #16
 

BaggersRDumb

(186 posts)
1. I dont know how people can think he is progressive, but I know some do.
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 12:57 PM
Aug 2014

He has a slave owner mentality about the AA community.

Sure he wants to make things better for them, in the way a slave owner would if he thought it was time to reward them.

Republican business owners think like this with ALL employees, it is sick and it makes me sick.

You typed ron you meant rand

TBF

(32,047 posts)
4. Thanks - I made the edit
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:39 PM
Aug 2014

and yes it does baffle the mind that some are cheerleading for him right on DU

BainsBane

(53,031 posts)
2. He'll lower taxes on the upper-middle class
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:02 PM
Aug 2014

and say some stuff they like on cable TV and be sure to pound his fists and express requisite levels of rage. That seems enough for some. What the impact of GOP polices are on the rest of us don't matter. In fact, if life is made worse for women, people of color, and LGBT, that is probably a plus. Make no mistake about it: right-wingers support a right-winger.

cyberswede

(26,117 posts)
3. (your thread title should read: Rand Paul's voting record)
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 01:16 PM
Aug 2014

...but thanks for posting this.

Fuck Rand Paul.

wandy

(3,539 posts)
6. Rand (the neck stompper) Paul..............
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:24 PM
Aug 2014
Judge a man not by his words but by his actions.

Thanks for posting.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
7. He would be a disaster for human beings,
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:36 PM
Aug 2014

and the fact that he would is just one more good reason not to allow corporate Dems to shove Hillary down our throats.

No matter how disastrous his policies would be, he can be counted upon to RUN as an antiwar, anti-surveillance state, anti-drug war platform candidate.

None of us should have to face an election in which the Republican is the antiwar, anti-spying, anti-drug war candidate, and the Democrat is on the other side.

Hell, we shouldn't have to settle for that kind of candidate no matter who is on the other side.

leftstreet

(36,106 posts)
8. +1
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:38 PM
Aug 2014
No matter how disastrous his policies would be, he can be counted upon to RUN as an antiwar, anti-surveillance state, anti-drug war platform candidate.


And if the Democrats let the opposition own that, they're...I don't know what
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
14. And, this ...
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:36 PM
Aug 2014
No matter how disastrous his policies would be, he can be counted upon to RUN as an antiwar, anti-surveillance state, anti-drug war platform candidate.


Will leave progressives on DU all misty ... But the American Electorate and/or the Democratic base most unexcited.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
10. Don't forget what a great opportunity he saw in hurting millions of Americans:
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 02:57 PM
Aug 2014

By Dana Liebelson - Oct. 10, 2013



1. Social Security payments will be delayed, possibly cut. According to President Obama, in the event of a default the US government will have no choice but to delay Social Security checks. The government owes $12 billion in Social Security payments on October 23 and an additional $25 billion on November 1. At some point between October 22 and November 1, the BPC predicts that the US government will have exhausted its borrowing power and will either have to start severely delaying its bills or sort through the millions of different payments it makes each month—on everything from national parks to the FBI—to figure out which ones to stop paying. That's when Social Security could see sustained cuts.

2. Federal employees will be screwed…even more. Furloughed federal employees haven't been paid since the government shutdown began on October 1. Congress is unlikely to end the shutdown without raising the debt limit, meaning furloughed staffers would be unlikely to receive paychecks anytime soon.

3. Pay and benefits for military service members and veterans will be delayed, possibly cut. The US government owes $12 billion in pay to active and retired military service members on November 1. Those payments will be delayed if the government runs out of money before then, and potentially cut, depending on which bills the US decides to pay.

4. Medicare and Medicaid checks will be delayed, possibly cut. The US government owes $2 billion in Medicaid payments on October 30 and $18 billion in Medicare payments on November 1. Same deal: If the government runs out of cash before then, payments will be delayed, or put on the chopping block with everything else.


Kept within 4 paragraphs to match DU rules. Much more at the link, showing it will be impossible to recover from default, yet the GOP thinks this is a great idea. They want a civil war, and this is how they want to get one, but many won't survive this. It is a manufactured crisis, there is not country in the world that wants this.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/16-ways-not-raising-debt-ceiling-will-screw-americans

With thanks to Mira who posted the Mother Jones link in GD. You can go to enter that discussion, I added more information:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023834604

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110218177

Debt Ceiling: 'Chaotic' choices on 100 million payments

By Jeanne Sahadi - January 7, 2013

If Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling soon, the Treasury Department will be forced to make drastic, no-win decisions on how to honor tens of millions of legally owed payments every month...

Prioritizing interest payments means Treasury must choose from more than 100 million monthly payments and would not be able to pay 40% of the dollars owed...


Much more at link:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/07/news/economy/debt-ceiling/index.html

Those expecting veteran benefits will lose those in November through shutdown or with default:

5 million will lose veterans' benefits next month if shutdown stretches to November


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=616482



Rand Paul says default can be 'framed as a reasonable idea' and Tom Coburn wants to default to face a 'managed catastrophe.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3820816

Why the people of the USA aren't in the offices of these gangsters protesting right now, proves the power of media.

They will blame Obama, the poor, the disabled, the elderly and any 'Others,' instead of the GOP.

We should never forget on a liberal, progressive website whose mission is to see more Democrats elected to office:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

We can see the F.U.D. for what it is. Rand Paul has voted for repealing the ACA that benefits people in his state, still pushes Right to Work laws, personhood attachments to bills, voted against the VAWA, is for privatizing police, fire departments, schools, social services or eliminating them along with Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, is anti-environment... the list goes on.

His alleged virtues about warfare are con jobs when you see the warfare by inequality and racism he supports daily. He says what's happening in Ferguson isn't racial. But then, he doesn't see a lot of people as worthwhile human beings who should have a say in governing ourselves.

He's too wet to step on and too low to kick. ~ JustAnotherGen





riqster

(13,986 posts)
11. Just like his daddy.
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:12 PM
Aug 2014

Paulbots of both sorts seem either unaware or unconcerned about the actual records of their heroes.

TBF

(32,047 posts)
13. Yup they are both bad -
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:34 PM
Aug 2014

I'm really clueless as to why Progressives would be tempted to even look in this direction. Elizabeth or Bernie are much better choices. Even Hillary is a much better choice and I'd put her as the most conservative of the 3 despite Bernie's current independent title.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
15. Lots of single-issue voters seem to be Paulbots.
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:50 PM
Aug 2014

I'd dearly love to see Bernie run as a Dem, if I had my druthers.

geardaddy

(24,926 posts)
12. Here are a couple more of this lovely votes:
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:12 PM
Aug 2014

S Amdt 711 - Prohibits the Sale of Assault Weapons - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Amendment Vote) on this Amendment.

S Amdt 714 - Limits Firearm Magazine Capacity - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Nay (Amendment Vote) on this Amendment.

S Amdt 1197 - Requires the Completion of the Fence Along the United States-Mexico Border - Key Vote
National Key Votes

Rand Paul voted Yea (Amendment Vote) on this Amendment.

Repeals the Limit on the Use of Funds to Procure Alternative Fuel Amendment Adopted - Senate
(62 - 37) Nay
Repeals the Prohibition on Biofuel Refinery Construction Amendment Adopted - Senate
(54 - 41) Nay

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
16. If factual mattered
Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:53 PM
Aug 2014

then Romney and McCain would have never won the Republican nominations. They both had very long histories that were waaaaaay too far out of the current conservative mainstream.

Instead, they claimed to really be super-conservative. And since Fox said it was true, Republicans voted for them.

As a result, it's really not that inconceivable for Paul to walk down the same path for his party's nomination.

Where this potentially gets interesting is if the Democratic nominee doesn't look like they would be a "bastion of liberalism". If both candidates are talking about cutting taxes and "reforming" entitlements, then it's going to be difficult to argue that the Democrat is actually going to protect liberal policies - after all, it was Bill Clinton that destroyed welfare.

So you're left with "gonna fuck over liberalism, but is anti-war/anti-surveillance." and "gonna fuck over liberalism and is pro-war/pro-surveillance".

This, btw, is one of the two main reasons why the "inevitability" strategy is fucking moronic. First, you're demanding no one remember that the inevitable candidate already lost.

Second, it leaves no good opportunity for the inevitable candidate to campaign for the Democratic nomination. Instead it's straight to the general and trying to pull in liberal Republicans. Resulting in no campaigning towards liberal Democrats, who absolutely must turn out and vote in order for the Democrat to win.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Keeping it Factual: Rand...