Rachel Maddow - Rand Paul’s trouble with the truth

[Galraedia]

[Voice for Peace]

1. hmmm

I am generally a fan of her reporting but I don't agree
this time. My perception is that a great deal is being
read into and superimposed upon Rand Paul and his views.

This will be a huge mistake if by chance he gets the
nomination. He has a lot to say which many progressives
and especially many millennials are going to agree with.

Dear Everybody: Please don't attack me for not hating
on Rand Paul. I'm trying very hard, always, to perceive
through my own eyes and brain, not those of others
either on the left or right. Feel free to educate me; only
I ask that you do it kindly and respectfully. thanks

[Enthusiast]

2. Many millennials are going to have to wise up

and recognize the guy's position on desegregation is, or was, way out of the mainstream. We know his position. He made it clear.

Of course he is now trying to back track.

Rachel is right on.

[thucythucy]

3. What is it you don't agree with?

That Rand Paul said he had a problem with at least one title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? That he obviously plagiarized a portion of his speech? That his reaction was one of petulant and blustering denial, rather than owning up to his previous opinions and actions? Or that this will matter in a possible presidential campaign?

As to the last, we'll have to wait and see. But his response to these allegations, like Romney's "47%" remark, tells on his character. I agree with Rachel on this: in an age of social media, it's going to be difficult to simply brush off this sort of accusation.

Edited to add:

Here's a good example of how Rand Paul's BS might be handled:

[Voice for Peace]

6. my opinion

That Rand Paul said he had a problem with at least one title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I don't think that's in dispute? As far as I understand that's what
he said.

I don't know the Civil Rights Act well enough to know how it
breaks down. What I heard him say is he has a problem only
with that one part -- specifically because it conflicts with his
understanding of private ownership rights.

That he obviously plagiarized a portion of his speech?

Yes, I disagree with Rachel's portrayal of this.

It is conceivable to me that someone wrote the speech for him,
he did not realize it was copied wfw from Wikipedia, and that in
his own mind it wasn't a huge deal, because he was valuing
the anecdote and making a point with it. This is essentially
what I heard him say. I did not perceive that he was lying about
a deliberate plagiary; and I don't think others will either.

That his reaction was one of petulant and blustering denial, rather than owning up to his previous opinions and actions? Or that this will matter in a possible presidential campaign?

Yes, I disagree with both of those. I am trying to look and
listen from a super impartial place; because I know he has
an appeal and I am curious, because I know many millennials
who lean libertarian.

It isn't an Ayn Rand greedy selfish coldhearted-type libertarianism;
it is, quite simply, the concept of freedom.

How it will play out over time, in practical life & politics, isn't
always the concern of young voters. But "get big government
off our backs, out of our lives" is not only for rightwingers.

Liberals have those feelings too, it's not only tea partiers.
We want to marry whom we please. We want to have our weed
and smoke it too. We want to make choices for ourselves and
our sons and daughters. We do not want to be regulated by
big government.

And who of us wants to pay all these taxes?? Not me!! Why??
I'm poor!! But mainly because my taxes are used for unjust
wars, Israel, military, big corporate subsidies, corrupt police
departments, constipated bureaucracies, waste, fraud and
more. We shouldn't have to pay for all that. My grandfather
tried to leave a bunch of money to his many grandchildren.
More than half of it was taken, and went directly to Iraq
I'm sure.

I don't underestimate the libertarian philosophy for this time,
this upcoming generation. They want to be free, and that's
what this ideology purports to offer.

I don't think Rand Paul should be dismissed, and imo this
type of reporting seems desperate, makes liberals look silly.
If he is that bad and/or crazy, there will be plenty of other
solid evidence.

[crystal dawn]

4. Rand Paul is a fake

I've seen a lot of people (Bill Maher especially) trying to give this guy credit where credit is due, because he happens to have a position or three that one can agree with, but don't be fooled. The Paul's have a history of using focus groups, polling, and the like to try and find issues that are popular at the time in order to sway otherwise liberal and progressive voters to their side. They already have the conservatives, but unlike the Republicans who seem to not even care how many women and minorities they offend, the libertarian streak of Rand Paul and Ron Paul understand that they need to find hot button issues or political positions that they can agree with liberals on and then exploit them.

It's easy. Appear as though you are on the right side of an issue, but don't have a plan to deal with the consequences. Sound like you have a good philosophy on how governments and economies should work, but don't bother them when they are asked for a definitive solution to some of the ills that their so called freedom creates.

He's a fake and a phoney and doesn't give shit about our freedom, only the freedom for cheap labor conservatives to reign.

[Gothmog]

5. Rand Paul has no chance of being elected

He does not have the intelligence or capacity to be POTUS