Rand Paul speech in Iowa.

[boneyard bill]

Rand Paul traveled to Iowa recently to speak at the opening of his campaign headquarters there. Although the speech was somewhat partisan, it wasn't your typical Republican speech either. But it is likely to be a preview of the kind of campaign Paul will run in Iowa. So is this approach going to shake up the Republican Party? Will it appeal to independents and Democrats?

Rand notes that he is running ahead of Hillary in six states that went for Obama (including Iowa). Would Rand Paul be Hillary's worst nightmare in a general election?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgkgVN69WQ

 

[Ford]

Let me guess.


He thinks taxes are too high.


There's too much regulation.


"Washington insiders" blah blah blah.


There was some sort of dog whistle like "states rights" or a reference to welfare.



Obamacare is the devil.



He's going to "make America great again" or "take our country back" or some such nonsense.



And the only thing that really sets him all that far apart from his GOP colleagues is that he's marginally isolationist.

 

[untermensche]

We are not supposed to just blindly worship the Bill of Rights as if it is something passed to us from the gods.

We are supposed to think for ourselves and decide if rights given in 1789 still have any validity today.

 

[boneyard bill]

Let me guess.


He thinks taxes are too high.


There's too much regulation.


"Washington insiders" blah blah blah.


There was some sort of dog whistle like "states rights" or a reference to welfare.



Obamacare is the devil.



He's going to "make America great again" or "take our country back" or some such nonsense.



And the only thing that really sets him all that far apart from his GOP colleagues is that he's marginally isolationist.

It seems pretty clear that you didn't listen to the speech.

 

[boneyard bill]

We are not supposed to just blindly worship the Bill of Rights as if it is something passed to us from the gods.

We are supposed to think for ourselves and decide if rights given in 1789 still have any validity today.

That's fine if you like living under arbitrary government. It you want to live under the rule of law, you have to adhere to it, and the constitution is the fundamental law of the land. When you ignore it, you destroy the law itself. That is what is happening in America today and on a bigger scale than ever before.

It isn't about "worshipping" the bill of rights. We could argue that the founders could have done a better or worse job of formulating them. But we either live in a land where the bill of rights that they did write either means something or it does not. If it does not, then ALL power passes to the government, and to all those assholes we elect to office.

 

[Ford]

It seems pretty clear that you didn't listen to the speech.

Why should I?


I've seen this guy make speeches and watched him on talk shows for a few years now, and it is pretty clear that apart from his borrowed-from-his-dad foreign policy stance (softened quite a bit) and his proclivity for leaning a bit too much on "states rights," he's not all that far outside of the Republican mainstream. Sure, he does a good job of grandstanding, but he's not the right's Bernie Sanders by a long stretch.


Rand Paul is Ron Paul Lite. He lacks the quirky charm of his dad, and unless this video represents a radical break from what Rand has presented publicly since he became a Senator, it would be a waste of time for me to watch.

 

[untermensche]

We are not supposed to just blindly worship the Bill of Rights as if it is something passed to us from the gods.

We are supposed to think for ourselves and decide if rights given in 1789 still have any validity today.

That's fine if you like living under arbitrary government. It you want to live under the rule of law, you have to adhere to it, and the constitution is the fundamental law of the land. When you ignore it, you destroy the law itself. That is what is happening in America today and on a bigger scale than ever before.

It isn't about "worshipping" the bill of rights. We could argue that the founders could have done a better or worse job of formulating them. But we either live in a land where the bill of rights that they did write either means something or it does not. If it does not, then ALL power passes to the government, and to all those assholes we elect to office.

Words are not what you think they are.

And the most arbitrary thing is the "rule of law".

 

[laughing dog]

Rand notes that he is running ahead of Hillary in six states that went for Obama (including Iowa).

It's a little earlier for that data to be meaningful. I think he is the kind of candidate that the more he opens his mouth, the less support he'll get.

Would Rand Paul be Hillary's worst nightmare in a general election?

I don"t know about Hillary, but, to his credit, he would not the USA's worst nightmare in a general election.

 

[boneyard bill]

It seems pretty clear that you didn't listen to the speech.

Why should I?


I've seen this guy make speeches and watched him on talk shows for a few years now, and it is pretty clear that apart from his borrowed-from-his-dad foreign policy stance (softened quite a bit) and his proclivity for leaning a bit too much on "states rights," he's not all that far outside of the Republican mainstream. Sure, he does a good job of grandstanding, but he's not the right's Bernie Sanders by a long stretch.


Rand Paul is Ron Paul Lite. He lacks the quirky charm of his dad, and unless this video represents a radical break from what Rand has presented publicly since he became a Senator, it would be a waste of time for me to watch.

The question arises as to why you bother to comment at all on a speech you know absolutely nothing about.

- - - Updated - - -

That's fine if you like living under arbitrary government. It you want to live under the rule of law, you have to adhere to it, and the constitution is the fundamental law of the land. When you ignore it, you destroy the law itself. That is what is happening in America today and on a bigger scale than ever before.

It isn't about "worshipping" the bill of rights. We could argue that the founders could have done a better or worse job of formulating them. But we either live in a land where the bill of rights that they did write either means something or it does not. If it does not, then ALL power passes to the government, and to all those assholes we elect to office.

Words are not what you think they are.

And the most arbitrary thing is the "rule of law".

I'd like to rebut what you said, but I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a little earlier for that data to be meaningful. I think he is the kind of candidate that the more he opens his mouth, the less support he'll get.

Would Rand Paul be Hillary's worst nightmare in a general election?

I don"t know about Hillary, but, to his credit, he would not the USA's worst nightmare in a general election.

Hillary has huge name recognition compared to Rand so the odds are he would gain on her from this point onward.

Hillary and Jeb WOULD be the USA's worst nightmare in a general election.

 

[Ford]

The question arises as to why you bother to comment at all on a speech you know absolutely nothing about.

Rand Paul has been a Senator since 2011. He has been officially running for President since April. He has a website. He has a voting record. He has a long list of appearances on talk shows and speeches made in the past five years. His positions are as clear as any other candidate.

I'm fairly well certain that the speech you invited comment upon in your OP does not offer a radical departure from those positions.

It would be notable (and worth watching) if he used the opportunity to change his position on key issues and reinvent himself as something other than he's been the past half decade, but I'm willing to bet there's nothing terribly new in the speech.


If there is, then I promise to watch if you'll point out where he's suddenly had a change of heart.

 

[boneyard bill]

The question arises as to why you bother to comment at all on a speech you know absolutely nothing about.

Rand Paul has been a Senator since 2011. He has been officially running for President since April. He has a website. He has a voting record. He has a long list of appearances on talk shows and speeches made in the past five years. His positions are as clear as any other candidate.

I'm fairly well certain that the speech you invited comment upon in your OP does not offer a radical departure from those positions.

It would be notable (and worth watching) if he used the opportunity to change his position on key issues and reinvent himself as something other than he's been the past half decade, but I'm willing to bet there's nothing terribly new in the speech.


If there is, then I promise to watch if you'll point out where he's suddenly had a change of heart.

You've already stated what you believe is in the speech presumably based on the understanding of Rand Paul that you claim to have gleaned from his record to date. Here is what you said:


"He thinks taxes are too high.


There's too much regulation.


"Washington insiders" blah blah blah.


There was some sort of dog whistle like "states rights" or a reference to welfare.



Obamacare is the devil.



He's going to "make America great again" or "take our country back" or some such nonsense.



And the only thing that really sets him all that far apart from his GOP colleagues is that he's marginally isolationist"

You're right on the first two but wrong about the rest.

So why is that again, that you decided to comment on this thread?

 

[Ford]

So why is that again, that you decided to comment on this thread?

You asked.


Edited to add:


Obamacare is the devil? Here's what Rand says:

As your President, one of my first acts would be to repeal the abomination that is Obamacare.

Take our country back? Rand Paul:

"I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government."—Rand Paul

He talks about states rights on education:

The Federal Government should not dictate what happens in our local classrooms. I believe we must abolish Common Core and give control back to the states, localities and parents.

These are quotes copied from your guy's website. Should I go on?

 

[untermensche]

That's fine if you like living under arbitrary government. It you want to live under the rule of law, you have to adhere to it, and the constitution is the fundamental law of the land. When you ignore it, you destroy the law itself. That is what is happening in America today and on a bigger scale than ever before.

It isn't about "worshipping" the bill of rights. We could argue that the founders could have done a better or worse job of formulating them. But we either live in a land where the bill of rights that they did write either means something or it does not. If it does not, then ALL power passes to the government, and to all those assholes we elect to office.

Words are not what you think they are.

And the most arbitrary thing is the "rule of law".

I'd like to rebut what you said, but I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

What?

But language is something clear that doesn't require interpretation.

 

[scombrid]

and the constitution is the fundamental law of the land.

And in Rand Paul land we think that the 14th Amendment ruined the Federal Constitution since it allows activist Federal judges to step all over states' rights to discriminate based on things like race, religion, and gender. We all know that only Congress should be so restricted and that states should be able to do whatever they want by way of popular vote.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

and the constitution is the fundamental law of the land.

And in Rand Paul land we think that the 14th Amendment ruined the Federal Constitution since it allows activist Federal judges to step all over states' rights to discriminate based on things like race, religion, and gender. We all know that only Congress should be so restricted and that states should be able to do whatever they want by way of popular vote.

Well, all of the amendments higher and lower than two are perversions that ruined a perfect document.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And in Rand Paul land we think that the 14th Amendment ruined the Federal Constitution since it allows activist Federal judges to step all over states' rights to discriminate based on things like race, religion, and gender. We all know that only Congress should be so restricted and that states should be able to do whatever they want by way of popular vote.

Well, all of the amendments higher and lower than two are perversions that ruined a perfect document.

Yes, the duty to be armed at all times is our highest law.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, the duty to be armed at all times is our highest law.

Unless you're black, of course, because then you're just dangerous and need to be stopped.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And in Rand Paul land we think that the 14th Amendment ruined the Federal Constitution since it allows activist Federal judges to step all over states' rights to discriminate based on things like race, religion, and gender. We all know that only Congress should be so restricted and that states should be able to do whatever they want by way of popular vote.

Well, all of the amendments higher and lower than two are perversions that ruined a perfect document.

No, no, no. You just have to remember to read the 2th Amendment with the widest possible interpretation, allowing things undreamt of by the Founding Fathers.

The other amendments, you have to read very narrowly, and fight like hell against any interpretation that goes beyond the letter of the law based on the proven intentions of the Founding Fathers.

 

[fromderinside]

Rand Paul traveled to Iowa recently to speak at the opening of his campaign headquarters there. Although the speech was somewhat partisan, it wasn't your typical Republican speech either. But it is likely to be a preview of the kind of campaign Paul will run in Iowa. So is this approach going to shake up the Republican Party? Will it appeal to independents and Democrats?

Rand notes that he is running ahead of Hillary in six states that went for Obama (including Iowa). Would Rand Paul be Hillary's worst nightmare in a general election?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgkgVN69WQ

I prefer a text version. Text permits cognitive scan not available in video.

Here it is from time.com. http://time.com/3773964/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-launch-speech-transcript/

My reading of the first five minutes of Paul's speech are, in the overreaching screaming generality and boogie mans stuff style of end of the worlders, I'm lucky (at least three minutes), Taxes are too high, we don't have the money, we spend too much,(one plus minutes" read the bill,( a few seconds) - comment from peanut gallary: why not insist on citizens voting: after all its a democracy where everyone's opinion is important -, ACA is bad medicine, return to our (never held before) greatness of liberty and opportunity for prosperity for everyone, we aren't the cops of the world .....

Looks a bit like what Ford wrote.

So I guess we don't need to read the speech boneyard bill​.

 

[fromderinside]

Paul's speech didn't rise to Bill of rights, Constitution, ore even governance level. The only thing loaded in Paul's speech were his words and phrases.

Stand Tall Vote for Paul, ya'll