Rand Paul speech in Iowa.

[SimpleDon]

Senator Rand Paul launches his presidential campaign

Like others here I prefer transcripts of speeches rather than listening to them. In this case reading the transcript demonstrates the insipid nature of the thinking involved.

I have a message, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We have come to take our country back.

Who are "we?"

We have come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank, the special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare.

Thank god, it is such a relief that he isn't campaigning like all of the other candidates to hand the government over to the special interests.

The Washington machine that gobbles up our freedoms and invades every nook and cranny of our lives must be stopped.
Less than five years ago I stood just down the road in home town in Bowling Green and said those same words. I wasn't supposed to win, no one thought I would.

But you didn't mention five years ago that we would apparently have to elect you President before you would do all of the wonderful things that you promised to do in the Senate.

Some people asked me, then why are you running? The answer is the same now as it was then. I have a vision for America. I want to be part of a return to prosperity, a true economic boom that lists all Americans, a return to a government restrained by the Constitution.
A return to privacy, opportunity, liberty. Too often when Republicans have won we have squandered our victory by becoming part of the Washington machine. That's not who I am.

Why do you think that our current government isn't constrained by the Constitution. By any measure the government is becoming increasingly more constrained by the Constitution and individual rights expanded more with nearly every SCOTUS ruling. Which of the expansion of individual rights resulting from a recent SCOTUS ruling would you reverse?

That's not why I ran for office the first time just a few years ago. The truth is, I love my life as a small-town doctor. Every day I woke up, I felt lucky to be able to do the things I loved. More importantly, I was blessed to be able to do things that made a difference in people's lives.
I never could have done any of this, though, without the help of my parents who are here today. I'd like you to join me and thank my mother and dad.
With my parents' help, I was able to make it through long years of medical training to become an eye surgeon. For me there is nothing that compares with helping someone see better. Last August I was privileged to travel to Guatemala on a medical mission trip together with a team of surgeons from across the U.S.
We operated on more than 200 people who were blind or nearly blind from cataracts. I was grateful to be able to put my scrubs back on, peer into the oculars of the microscope, and focus on the task at hand, to take a surgical approach to fix a problem.
One day in Guatemala, a man arrived and told me that I'd operated on his wife the day before. His wife could see clearly for the first time in years, and she had begged him to get on the bus, travel the winding roads and come back to our surgery center. He too was nearly blind from hardened cataracts.
After his surgery, the next day, his wife sat next to me. As I unveiled the patch from his eyes, it was a powerful emotional moment for me to see them looking at each other clearly for the first time years to see the face they loved again.
As I saw the joy in their eyes, I thought, "This is why I became a doctor."
In that moment, I also remembered my grandmother, who inspired me to become an eye surgeon. She spent hours with me as a kid. We would sort through her old coin collection, looking for wheat pennies and Indian heads. But as her vision began to fail, I became her eyes to inspect the faintness of the mint marks on the old weather-worn coins.
I went with my grandmother to the ophthalmologist as she had her corneas replaced. I was also with her when she received the sad news that macular generation had done irreparable harm to her eyes.
My hope… my hope that my grandmother would see again made me want to become an eye surgeon, to make a difference in people's lives.
I've been fortunate. I've been able to enjoy the American Dream.

I see that Rand has no fear of resorting to mind numbing bullsh*t on occasion.

I worry, though, that the opportunity and hope are slipping away for our sons and daughters. As I watch our once-great economy collapse under mounting spending and debt, I think, "What kind of America will our grandchildren see"?

Like all of the Republicans he is able to reduce spending in the abstract quite easily, but when it comes to specifics he is completely useless, unable to provide us with a list of the 300 to 400 billion dollars of spending cuts that would prevent us from going into debt and to balance the budget.

It seems to me that both parties and the entire political system are to blame.
Big government and debt doubled under a Republican administration.
And it's now tripling under Barack Obama's watch. President Obama is on course to add more debt than all of the previous presidents combined.

Obama has had to struggle with the largest financial crisis and recession since the Great Depression brought on by the conservative and libertarian applauded failure to regulate the financial sector. Rand goes on and promises us even less regulation and oversight of the financial sector in his administration, virtually assuring us major financial crises every five to ten years.

This he had to do in the face of the unprecedented obstruction of the Republicans. There was always in the history of the country two times when the two parties would work together, wartime and in the face of severe recession.

The Republicans did everything in their power to prolong the recession and the pain and suffering from it, once their constituents, the wealthy, were taken care of.

We borrow a million dollars a minute. This vast accumulation of debt threatens not just our economy, but our security.

The proximate cause of our debt and our deficit spending is our trade deficit. It is high in order to suppress wages and to increase profits. This is the very core of the Republican, and Rand Paul's, plan for the country, to continue and to increase the economic policies that suppress wages and increase profits, to shift ever more income from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.

Think of it this way. In the medium term the growth in the money supply should be equal to the growth in the economy plus the amount of money that we spend in other countries that isn't balanced by other countries buying our products, that is the trade deficit. This money effectively leaves our economy.

We can wake up now and do the right thing. Quit spending money we don't have.

The alternative to "spending money that we don't have" is to reduce the savings that we do have, to increase the private debt that is climbing back to the historical highs that we had before the deregulation delusion financial crisis and recession of 2008. As long as we continue to run the high trade deficits that we have been running these are our choices.

Have no doubts, the Republicans understand the relationship between the trade deficit, the quantity of money and the need to run to run a government budget deficit to balance the two. They just want to make sure that it is their constituency, the wealthy, who profit from the budget deficit and not the poor and the middle class.

This message of liberty is for all Americans, Americans from all walks of life. The message of liberty, opportunity and justice is for all Americans, whether you wear a suit, a uniform or overalls, whether you're white or black, rich or poor.
In order to restore America, one thing is for certain, though: We cannot, we must not dilute our message or give up on our principles.
If we nominate a candidate who is simply Democrat Light, what's the point?
Why bother?

We would elect a Democrat to preserve the social gains of the poor and the middle class and things like Social Security and Medicare. To try to reverse the shifting of incomes from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. To try to maintain the environmental gains of the last fifty years and to have a small chance to meet the new environmental challenges of today that the Republicans, in the face of all of the available evidence, deny that even exist.

We need to boldly proclaim our vision for America. We need to go boldly forth under the banner of liberty that clutches the Constitution in one hand and the Bill of Rights in the other.
Washington is horribly broken. I fear it can't be fixed from within. We the people must rise up and demand action.
Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them to do so. Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment.

Which world be the single stupidest thing that we could do, except for going back to the gold standard, for the economy. Unless he is willing to pass an amendment to prevent a trade deficit.

I have been to Washington, and let me tell you, there is no monopoly on knowledge there.
I ran for office because we have too many career politicians. I believe it now more than ever.
We limit the President to two terms. It's about time we limit the terms of Congress!
I want to reform Washington. I want common sense rules that will break the logjam in Congress.
That's why I introduced a Read the Bills Act.
The bills are thousands of pages long. And no one reads them. They are often plopped on our desks only a few hours before a vote.
I've proposed something truly extraordinary — Let's read the bills, every page!
The bills are 1,000 pages long and no one reads them. They are often plopped on our desk with only a few hours before a vote, so I propose something truly extraordinary. Let's read the bills every day.

Unfortunately the bills are now this long because Republican administrations were trying to use the regulation writing mechanism of previous "short" bills, to write regulations that short circuited the intent of the legislation. For example, the environmental legislation, the Bush administration tried to rewrite the regulations that restricted the admission of air and water pollutants, to permit higher emissions, clearly against the intent of the Environmental Protection Act.

From the time I was a very young boy I was taught to love and appreciate America. Love of liberty pulses in my veins not because we have beautiful mountains or white sand beaches, although we do, and not because of our abundance of resources. It's more visceral than that. Our great nation was founded upon the extraordinary notion that government should be restrained and freedom should be maximized.

The question is whose freedom does Rand want to maximize and at what costs to the freedoms of others. He seems to be zeroed in on increasing the freedoms of the corporations and the wealthy and of gun owners at the costs of everyone else's freedoms.

This is about half way through the speech. It is primarily rhetoric with no specificity. I will continue later, we are suffering a family tragedy.

 

[Rhea]

Boneyard, you keep harping on no one taking your post seriously, and no one answering your questuions, but that's confusing because they did.

They said Rand had no chance against Hillary. Several times. How did you miss that?
They said, "I think the more he opens his mouth, the less people will like him" (laughing dog) They sayd he was not a serious contender and had no substance. They said he would not beat Hillary. They said he wasn't even worth listening to, because his public record is already unelectable.

Just because you aren't getting the answer you want doesn't mean you aren't getting answers.

Also, you are misusing the term "the rule of law means something"
The Rule of Law DOES NOT mean that the law never changes.
IT MEANS that whatever the law is, everyone has to obey it equally.

HUGE difference. And yes the constitution can and should be updated from time to time to keep pace with actual national issues.

And if you really like that "rule of law" thing, you should be beating the drums for "well regulated militias" to be the only place where owned guns can exist.

Rand Paul has a couple of popular positions. But when he speaks, you can see that they would not be developed because they would be neutered by his love of the aristocracy class.

 

[boneyard bill]

Senator Rand Paul launches his presidential campaign

Like others here I prefer transcripts of speeches rather than listening to them. In this case reading the transcript demonstrates the insipid nature of the thinking involved.



Who are "we?"

We have come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank, the special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare.

Thank god, it is such a relief that he isn't campaigning like all of the other candidates to hand the government over to the special interests.

The Washington machine that gobbles up our freedoms and invades every nook and cranny of our lives must be stopped.
Less than five years ago I stood just down the road in home town in Bowling Green and said those same words. I wasn't supposed to win, no one thought I would.

But you didn't mention five years ago that we would apparently have to elect you President before you would do all of the wonderful things that you promised to do in the Senate.

Some people asked me, then why are you running? The answer is the same now as it was then. I have a vision for America. I want to be part of a return to prosperity, a true economic boom that lists all Americans, a return to a government restrained by the Constitution.
A return to privacy, opportunity, liberty. Too often when Republicans have won we have squandered our victory by becoming part of the Washington machine. That's not who I am.

Why do you think that our current government isn't constrained by the Constitution. By any measure the government is becoming increasingly more constrained by the Constitution and individual rights expanded more with nearly every SCOTUS ruling. Which of the expansion of individual rights resulting from a recent SCOTUS ruling would you reverse?

That's not why I ran for office the first time just a few years ago. The truth is, I love my life as a small-town doctor. Every day I woke up, I felt lucky to be able to do the things I loved. More importantly, I was blessed to be able to do things that made a difference in people's lives.
I never could have done any of this, though, without the help of my parents who are here today. I'd like you to join me and thank my mother and dad.
With my parents' help, I was able to make it through long years of medical training to become an eye surgeon. For me there is nothing that compares with helping someone see better. Last August I was privileged to travel to Guatemala on a medical mission trip together with a team of surgeons from across the U.S.
We operated on more than 200 people who were blind or nearly blind from cataracts. I was grateful to be able to put my scrubs back on, peer into the oculars of the microscope, and focus on the task at hand, to take a surgical approach to fix a problem.
One day in Guatemala, a man arrived and told me that I'd operated on his wife the day before. His wife could see clearly for the first time in years, and she had begged him to get on the bus, travel the winding roads and come back to our surgery center. He too was nearly blind from hardened cataracts.
After his surgery, the next day, his wife sat next to me. As I unveiled the patch from his eyes, it was a powerful emotional moment for me to see them looking at each other clearly for the first time years to see the face they loved again.
As I saw the joy in their eyes, I thought, "This is why I became a doctor."
In that moment, I also remembered my grandmother, who inspired me to become an eye surgeon. She spent hours with me as a kid. We would sort through her old coin collection, looking for wheat pennies and Indian heads. But as her vision began to fail, I became her eyes to inspect the faintness of the mint marks on the old weather-worn coins.
I went with my grandmother to the ophthalmologist as she had her corneas replaced. I was also with her when she received the sad news that macular generation had done irreparable harm to her eyes.
My hope… my hope that my grandmother would see again made me want to become an eye surgeon, to make a difference in people's lives.
I've been fortunate. I've been able to enjoy the American Dream.

I see that Rand has no fear of resorting to mind numbing bullsh*t on occasion.

I worry, though, that the opportunity and hope are slipping away for our sons and daughters. As I watch our once-great economy collapse under mounting spending and debt, I think, "What kind of America will our grandchildren see"?

Like all of the Republicans he is able to reduce spending in the abstract quite easily, but when it comes to specifics he is completely useless, unable to provide us with a list of the 300 to 400 billion dollars of spending cuts that would prevent us from going into debt and to balance the budget.

It seems to me that both parties and the entire political system are to blame.
Big government and debt doubled under a Republican administration.
And it's now tripling under Barack Obama's watch. President Obama is on course to add more debt than all of the previous presidents combined.

Obama has had to struggle with the largest financial crisis and recession since the Great Depression brought on by the conservative and libertarian applauded failure to regulate the financial sector. Rand goes on and promises us even less regulation and oversight of the financial sector in his administration, virtually assuring us major financial crises every five to ten years.

This he had to do in the face of the unprecedented obstruction of the Republicans. There was always in the history of the country two times when the two parties would work together, wartime and in the face of severe recession.

The Republicans did everything in their power to prolong the recession and the pain and suffering from it, once their constituents, the wealthy, were taken care of.

We borrow a million dollars a minute. This vast accumulation of debt threatens not just our economy, but our security.

The proximate cause of our debt and our deficit spending is our trade deficit. It is high in order to suppress wages and to increase profits. This is the very core of the Republican, and Rand Paul's, plan for the country, to continue and to increase the economic policies that suppress wages and increase profits, to shift ever more income from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.

Think of it this way. In the medium term the growth in the money supply should be equal to the growth in the economy plus the amount of money that we spend in other countries that isn't balanced by other countries buying our products, that is the trade deficit. This money effectively leaves our economy.

We can wake up now and do the right thing. Quit spending money we don't have.

The alternative to "spending money that we don't have" is to reduce the savings that we do have, to increase the private debt that is climbing back to the historical highs that we had before the deregulation delusion financial crisis and recession of 2008. As long as we continue to run the high trade deficits that we have been running these are our choices.

Have no doubts, the Republicans understand the relationship between the trade deficit, the quantity of money and the need to run to run a government budget deficit to balance the two. They just want to make sure that it is their constituency, the wealthy, who profit from the budget deficit and not the poor and the middle class.

This message of liberty is for all Americans, Americans from all walks of life. The message of liberty, opportunity and justice is for all Americans, whether you wear a suit, a uniform or overalls, whether you're white or black, rich or poor.
In order to restore America, one thing is for certain, though: We cannot, we must not dilute our message or give up on our principles.
If we nominate a candidate who is simply Democrat Light, what's the point?
Why bother?

We would elect a Democrat to preserve the social gains of the poor and the middle class and things like Social Security and Medicare. To try to reverse the shifting of incomes from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy. To try to maintain the environmental gains of the last fifty years and to have a small chance to meet the new environmental challenges of today that the Republicans, in the face of all of the available evidence, deny that even exist.

We need to boldly proclaim our vision for America. We need to go boldly forth under the banner of liberty that clutches the Constitution in one hand and the Bill of Rights in the other.
Washington is horribly broken. I fear it can't be fixed from within. We the people must rise up and demand action.
Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them to do so. Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment.

Which world be the single stupidest thing that we could do, except for going back to the gold standard, for the economy. Unless he is willing to pass an amendment to prevent a trade deficit.

I have been to Washington, and let me tell you, there is no monopoly on knowledge there.
I ran for office because we have too many career politicians. I believe it now more than ever.
We limit the President to two terms. It's about time we limit the terms of Congress!
I want to reform Washington. I want common sense rules that will break the logjam in Congress.
That's why I introduced a Read the Bills Act.
The bills are thousands of pages long. And no one reads them. They are often plopped on our desks only a few hours before a vote.
I've proposed something truly extraordinary — Let's read the bills, every page!
The bills are 1,000 pages long and no one reads them. They are often plopped on our desk with only a few hours before a vote, so I propose something truly extraordinary. Let's read the bills every day.

Unfortunately the bills are now this long because Republican administrations were trying to use the regulation writing mechanism of previous "short" bills, to write regulations that short circuited the intent of the legislation. For example, the environmental legislation, the Bush administration tried to rewrite the regulations that restricted the admission of air and water pollutants, to permit higher emissions, clearly against the intent of the Environmental Protection Act.

From the time I was a very young boy I was taught to love and appreciate America. Love of liberty pulses in my veins not because we have beautiful mountains or white sand beaches, although we do, and not because of our abundance of resources. It's more visceral than that. Our great nation was founded upon the extraordinary notion that government should be restrained and freedom should be maximized.

The question is whose freedom does Rand want to maximize and at what costs to the freedoms of others. He seems to be zeroed in on increasing the freedoms of the corporations and the wealthy and of gun owners at the costs of everyone else's freedoms.

This is about half way through the speech. It is primarily rhetoric with no specificity. I will continue later, we are suffering a family tragedy.

I believe the question I asked was about the political significance of what Rand had to say while you have addressed the specific proposals. I didn't expect that people on these boards were going to agree with Rand Paul on most issues. At least you have something significant to say about the speech instead of offering more inane blather.

I don't think your points are well taken. For example, Rand is on record with a proposed budget that drastically cuts spending. Of course, he's not going to detail them in short speech. The financial de-regulation that you speak of and which you blame for the 2008 downturn took place under the Clinton Administration and with the enthusiastic endorsement from the White House and the Treasury Department. It's hard to see where Democrats have done much to help low-income people and this is especially true of the Obama Administration where income disparities have risen remarkably. The remainder of your comments are economic opinions which I will not address here as that would de-rail the post.

Sorry to hear about you family tragedy. I hope things work out well in the end.

 

[boneyard bill]

Boneyard, you keep harping on no one taking your post seriously, and no one answering your questuions, but that's confusing because they did.

They said Rand had no chance against Hillary. Several times. How did you miss that?
They said, "I think the more he opens his mouth, the less people will like him" (laughing dog) They sayd he was not a serious contender and had no substance. They said he would not beat Hillary. They said he wasn't even worth listening to, because his public record is already unelectable.

Just because you aren't getting the answer you want doesn't mean you aren't getting answers.

Also, you are misusing the term "the rule of law means something"
The Rule of Law DOES NOT mean that the law never changes.
IT MEANS that whatever the law is, everyone has to obey it equally.

HUGE difference. And yes the constitution can and should be updated from time to time to keep pace with actual national issues.

And if you really like that "rule of law" thing, you should be beating the drums for "well regulated militias" to be the only place where owned guns can exist.

Rand Paul has a couple of popular positions. But when he speaks, you can see that they would not be developed because they would be neutered by his love of the aristocracy class.

Dogmatic pronouncements do not constitute analysis. Some people like the color red. Some people like the color blue. So do people like their candidates for the same arbitrary reasons that they like colors? I would hope not. At least not among people who like to express political opinions.

I think Hillary will win because I like to think that Hillary will win. Wow. That's some real analysis there. What's the point of posting such drivel? It's a waste of cyberspace.

You're dead wrong on the rule of law, and you're dead wrong on the constitution, but that's a subject for another thread.

 

[Rhea]

You're dead wrong on the rule of law, and you're dead wrong on the constitution, but that's a subject for another thread.

Well, okay.

rule of law
noun
1.
the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.

or

What is the Rule of Law?

Derived from internationally accepted standards, the World Justice Project’s definition of the rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:

The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
These four universal principles are further developed in the following nine factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index, which measures how the rule of law is experienced by ordinary people in 99 countries around the globe.

where "stable" doesn't mean unchanging, rather that it doesn't change constantly or capriciously.

or,

For the UN, the Secretary-General defines the rule of law as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency." (Report of the Secretary-General: The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies” (2004))

 

[laughing dog]

Dogmatic pronouncements do not constitute analysis. Some people like the color red. Some people like the color blue. So do people like their candidates for the same arbitrary reasons that they like colors? I would hope not. At least not among people who like to express political opinions.

And some people like anyone whose last name is Paul which makes them dogmatic in their dismissiveness of any fact-based or logic-based criticism of their adoration.

You're dead wrong on the rule of law, and you're dead wrong on the constitution, but that's a subject for another thread.

These are examples of dogmatic pronouncements driven by emotion not facts. Rhea proved it about the rule of law. History shows that our constitution has been updated because of national issues. Finally, the entire purpose for allowing amendments is the recognition that the Constitution will need updating over time. I suspect Rand Paul and even Ron Paul would understand that.

 

[boneyard bill]

Well, okay.

rule of law
noun
1.
the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.

or

What is the Rule of Law?

Derived from internationally accepted standards, the World Justice Project’s definition of the rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:

The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
These four universal principles are further developed in the following nine factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index, which measures how the rule of law is experienced by ordinary people in 99 countries around the globe.

where "stable" doesn't mean unchanging, rather that it doesn't change constantly or capriciously.

or,

For the UN, the Secretary-General defines the rule of law as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency." (Report of the Secretary-General: The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies” (2004))

I never said that law doesn't change. Quite obviously we have all kinds of mechanisms for changing the law so I don't see what your point is with regard to the above posts. But law doesn't change just because some judge says that the written law means something other than what was actually written down.