Rand Paul Calls For A New GOP

[Avatar4321]

So great they have to cheat in elections to retain seats

Yeah because Al Franken is a Republican now

 

[Avatar4321]

So glad we have you to tell us what we think of his suggestions.

That's funny, since neocons can't think.

Rand Paul is a neocon? You realize that Neocon is just a manufactured term right? It doesnt actually mean jack.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Uh oh:

Rand Paul Has Found A Brilliant Way For The GOP To Dodge The Gay Marriage Question - Business Insider

"I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults — I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the Southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."

Will this dodge be good enough, or is Paul next to be called a RINO?

.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Rand Pauls GOP would never win an election

That's why he's calling it "stale and moss covered". He knows unless they get their shit together his political career is over before it gets started.

 

[dblack]

.

Uh oh:

Rand Paul Has Found A Brilliant Way For The GOP To Dodge The Gay Marriage Question - Business Insider

""I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults — I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the Southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."

Will this dodge be good enough, or is Paul next to be called a RINO?

.

I don't think it's a dodge at all. If fact, it gets right to the heart of the issue. The problem most religious conservatives have with legalizing gay marriage is their view that this would amount to the state endorsing homosexuality. If the state gets out of the business of endorsing marriage altogether, the problem is solved.

 

[dblack]

So glad we have you to tell us what we think of his suggestions.

That's funny, since neocons can't think.

Rand Paul is a neocon? You realize that Neocon is just a manufactured term right? It doesnt actually mean jack.

"Neo-con" is pretty well defined, actually. But Rand Paul is the opposite of neo-con.

 

[Bfgrn]

So glad we have you to tell us what we think of his suggestions.

That's funny, since neocons can't think.

Rand Paul is a neocon? You realize that Neocon is just a manufactured term right? It doesnt actually mean jack.

Neoconservative is not anymore manufactured than any other term.

Read up on Irving Kristol.

 

[Contumacious]

Rand Pauls GOP would never win an election

That is correct.

The Parasitic Faction now constitutes over 50% of the electorate - so a putative presidential candidate must speak the language they understand: food stamps, steal from the rich and give to the poor, government owes you a living , enhanced Obama hellcare....you get the drift.


.

 

[bendog]

Maybe not. But if they supplant Karl Rove's GOP, I call it a win.

A win for the Democrats

The Paul faction would become a congressional subset incapable of influencing any major issue

Voting no on every bill is not a position

And again, why would you not call that a "win" for the entire country? Would you prefer to see a more effective Rovist/neo-con Republican party?

I realize you're preoccupied with the left/right/demo/repub pissing match - but I think you're missing point of what the agenda has been all along. The point of the libertarian movement - as expressed by the Paul's et. al. - has always been to transform the party. And most of the ways they want to change the party should be welcome news to liberals with any real concern for the direction of the country.

The only Democrats who should feel threatened by Rand Paul and the effort to make the Republicans more libertarian are those who are primarily centrist authoritarians. Like their brethren in the Republican party, they are the target of the movement.

We're trying to wrestle control of our government away from the corporatists currently running it into the ground. I'd think genuine liberals and progressives would applaud the effort, even if they distrust the ideology behind it.

I'm trying to understand your post, and Paul, but two things don't ring true to me.

1. Aren't these the very people who elected Paul? " anti-choice, anti-labor, pro-gun movements, and the crusade to get Christian prayer back into government offices and the public school system. "

2. How do you wrestle control away from the "corporatists" (by which I assume you mean the people in both parties owned by the 1%) by simply eliminating soc sec and medicare and any regulation of biz?

 

[Truthmatters]

yeah hating the American people including VETs will really help your right wing fools get elected.

You will never win elections by hating on the American people.

I suggest you just move to another country that is willing to use your historically failed ideas.

You may not find one on earth though

 

[Sallow]

It is amazing that Rand Paul could view the results of the last election and conclude that the reason Republicans lost is because they are not more like him

Not really.

Up until getting into congress..he wanted to roll back civil rights as it pertained to private industry. And at the Benghazi Hearings he asked about arms shipments through Turkey, an issue that outside of conservative blogs, had no legs.

And although his holding the floor during a filibuster was admirable..the content of what he was saying was ridiculous.

 

[Dot Com]

the problem w/ Rand's idea is that "the base" of the GOP don't pay the bills. The super wealthy do & they could care less about social issues. They just want to increase their wealth with little to no regulation regardless of the effect on the rest of the country. Thats why they want the financial Reform Law repealed

 

[dblack]

A win for the Democrats

The Paul faction would become a congressional subset incapable of influencing any major issue

Voting no on every bill is not a position

And again, why would you not call that a "win" for the entire country? Would you prefer to see a more effective Rovist/neo-con Republican party?

I realize you're preoccupied with the left/right/demo/repub pissing match - but I think you're missing point of what the agenda has been all along. The point of the libertarian movement - as expressed by the Paul's et. al. - has always been to transform the party. And most of the ways they want to change the party should be welcome news to liberals with any real concern for the direction of the country.

The only Democrats who should feel threatened by Rand Paul and the effort to make the Republicans more libertarian are those who are primarily centrist authoritarians. Like their brethren in the Republican party, they are the target of the movement.

We're trying to wrestle control of our government away from the corporatists currently running it into the ground. I'd think genuine liberals and progressives would applaud the effort, even if they distrust the ideology behind it.

I'm trying to understand your post, and Paul, but two things don't ring true to me.

1. Aren't these the very people who elected Paul? " anti-choice, anti-labor, pro-gun movements, and the crusade to get Christian prayer back into government offices and the public school system. "

I don't know. Not sure what it has to do with my point.

2. How do you wrestle control away from the "corporatists" (by which I assume you mean the people in both parties owned by the 1%) by simply eliminating soc sec and medicare and any regulation of biz?

Your assumption is wrong. Corporatism is a broader problem than rich people manipulating government. It's government that has 'manipulation' as its mission statement.

 

[editec]

I'd like the OLD GOP back, personally.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Government was Designed to protect the people.

 

[Truthmatters]

i'd like the old gop back, personally.

agreed

 

[Dot Com]

pols do as their corporate paymasters say or those pols will be challenged in the next election by a well-funded opponent funded by, you guessed it, those same corporate paymasters &/or foreign lobbies. Aint Citizens United great?

 

[hunarcy]

Rand Pauls GOP would never win an election

Maybe not. But if they supplant Karl Rove's GOP, I call it a win.

A win for the Democrats

The Paul faction would become a congressional subset incapable of influencing any major issue

Voting no on every bill is not a position

If you oppose what's being done in every bill, then voting no on every bill is the correct position.

 

[Truthmatters]

the American people want their government to fucntion as designed NOT to have some minority of the minority party to cause deadlock

 

[dblack]

the American people want their government to fucntion as designed NOT to have some minority of the minority party to cause deadlock

Yeah! Minorities suck. Fuck them!