Rand Paul wants to continue the War on Drugs
Options
Jabu_Rule
Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/rand-paul-assures-evangelicals-that-he-d
I thought libertarians were all about individual freedoms and limiting federal reach?
At a lunch Friday with about a dozen evangelical pastors in a Cedar Rapids hotel, the younger Paul assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.
Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.
I thought libertarians were all about individual freedoms and limiting federal reach?
Comments
-
They are but legalization is a "no sale" to the conservative base. The best he could hope for is reducing sentencing.
-
He also switched up on his support for the use of drones. Actually it seems that he doesn't mind using them in a deadly manner against US Citizens.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_flopI've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.
I'm just wondering; If this hypothetical war breaks out because Obama wants our freedoms, who will honor those freedoms that we fought for, and who would become a dictator and take away all of the freedoms you thought you lost already? Be careful what you wish for. -
American politics = if you are a black person and you step out of line, than you deserve death!
-
Rand Paul is a hypocrite, which is oddly very consistent with American politicians. I'm sure he says these things he says because there is a base that responds to it, Libertarianism is a sexy ideology now.
People are getting a lot of burn out of it these days... -
Rand Paul been playing these Ron Paul stans like a fiddle for money & support from the jump. I been saying this cat would vote and act like every other ? Republican Senator that doesn't have to worry about running in a blue state.....
-
-
Rand Paul has also admitted he's not as libertarian as his father. so... there's that.
-
Rand Paul has also admitted he's not as libertarian as his father. so... there's that.
How Libertarian is Ron Paul really?
Rand Paul went harder then that. He denounced being a Libertarian.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"
And then he tip toed back to a comfy spot in the grey zone.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/15/rand-paul-plays-the-maverick-at-cpac-and-the-evangelical-in-cedar-rapids.html“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke ? ,” Paul insisted last Friday while speaking to a group of religious Republicans in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican.
I guess that's settled then.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Rand Paul has also admitted he's not as libertarian as his father. so... there's that.
How Libertarian is Ron Paul really?
Rand Paul went harder then that. He denounced being a Libertarian.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"
And then he tip toed back to a comfy spot in the grey zone.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/15/rand-paul-plays-the-maverick-at-cpac-and-the-evangelical-in-cedar-rapids.html“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke ? ,” Paul insisted last Friday while speaking to a group of religious Republicans in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican.
I guess that's settled then.
I don't think that I understand the point or relevance of this thread. You claim that Rand Paul is a hypocritical libertarian, but then you seem to imply that he is strictly not a libertarian and quote him saying just that.
There's also the fact that there are many different kinds of libertarians (yet many people confuse libertarians with anarchists, and even though there might be some overlap, the two can be quite oppositional), and one libertarian can differ vastly from another (e.g., Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul). This is one reason why I never like labels. Who cares what he's called. It's his policies that really matter, and I still see no significant flip-flopping on his part (nevermind the fact that a politician is allowed to genuinely change his views). And his policies may overlap with his father's, but not all of them do. And this fact has only been too obvious, so I don't understand why this would be news. Rand Paul has been and is buddy-buddy with Mitt Romney. That should speak for itself.
I think that Rand Paul is right when he says that he should be looked at independently from his father. Rand Paul is not a carbon copy of his father. Many Ron Paul supporters are very aware of this fact, but some are ignorant, and some aren't but still think that he's a much better alternative than a Mitt Romney or a Barack Obama. I, on the other hand, like Ron Paul, but I'm not and never have been a big fan of Rand Paul for obvious reasons.
One thing for sure is that Rand Paul is looking to further his political career, perhaps a presidential bid in 2016? All I know is that 2016 is certainly going to be a very interesting election year. -
FuriousOne wrote: »
Lol, is this a rhetorical question? -
They are but legalization is a "no sale" to the conservative base. The best he could hope for is reducing sentencing.
I see the issue of the legalization of drugs very much like I see the issue of gun rights. The opposition to both is largely due to political motivation and fear/ignorance. Politicans oppose them or shy away from support because the public opposes them. The public opposes them because it has an irrationally overwhelming fear of guns and drugs because it is ignorant. The idea that laws keep us from acquiring drugs and guns is naive and false. If you believe that, you might as well be sticking your head in the sand. You can't depend so much on the government and think that it can protect you from yourself because it cannot.
I agree that legalization of drugs is a "no sale," but imo it is only a "no sale" because many Americans, if not the majority of Americans, are ignorant ? . The War on Drugs is a fiasco, and Obama has admitted as much. And if absurd gun control measures were implemented, I doubt that they would have prevented Sandy Hook.Rand Paul is a hypocrite, which is oddly very consistent with American politicians. I'm sure he says these things he says because there is a base that responds to it, Libertarianism is a sexy ideology now.
People are getting a lot of burn out of it these days...
I disagree that libertarianism is a sexy ideology if by that you mean that libertarianism is now accepted into mainstream politics. Libertarians are still stigmatized, ridiculed, and criticized more than ever. It's also a highly misunderstood political philosophy. And some "liberatarians" don't even know that they're libertarians, but that doesn't keep them from unknowingly bashing other libertarians. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Rand Paul has also admitted he's not as libertarian as his father. so... there's that.
How Libertarian is Ron Paul really?
Rand Paul went harder then that. He denounced being a Libertarian.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"
And then he tip toed back to a comfy spot in the grey zone.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/15/rand-paul-plays-the-maverick-at-cpac-and-the-evangelical-in-cedar-rapids.html“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke ? ,” Paul insisted last Friday while speaking to a group of religious Republicans in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican.
I guess that's settled then.
I don't think that I understand the point or relevance of this thread. You claim that Rand Paul is a hypocritical libertarian, but then you seem to imply that he is strictly not a libertarian and quote him saying just that.
There's also the fact that there are many different kinds of libertarians (yet many people confuse libertarians with anarchists, and even though there might be some overlap, the two can be quite oppositional), and one libertarian can differ vastly from another (e.g., Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul). This is one reason why I never like labels. Who cares what he's called. It's his policies that really matter, and I still see no significant flip-flopping on his part (nevermind the fact that a politician is allowed to genuinely change his views). And his policies may overlap with his father's, but not all of them do. And this fact has only been too obvious, so I don't understand why this would be news. Rand Paul has been and is buddy-buddy with Mitt Romney. That should speak for itself.
I think that Rand Paul is right when he says that he should be looked at independently from his father. Rand Paul is not a carbon copy of his father. Many Ron Paul supporters are very aware of this fact, but some are ignorant, and some aren't but still think that he's a much better alternative than a Mitt Romney or a Barack Obama. I, on the other hand, like Ron Paul, but I'm not and never have been a big fan of Rand Paul for obvious reasons.
One thing for sure is that Rand Paul is looking to further his political career, perhaps a presidential bid in 2016? All I know is that 2016 is certainly going to be a very interesting election year.
This is a simple expose on the position of a man that has strong support for a run for President. Does that bother you? -
i say it more in this sense: however libertarian you find Ron Paul to be, Rand is self-admittedly less.FuriousOne wrote: »How Libertarian is Ron Paul really?
-
FuriousOne wrote: »
Lol, is this a rhetorical question?
^^^ Clarification: This is an honest, genuine question. It's not a rhetorical question. I still don't quite understand your question, and you still haven't offered any clarification. Instead of answering my question, you just hit me with a feelings? That's pretty lame. You either misunderstood me, or it's just another case of person A accusing person B of catching feelings because person A has caught feelings himself. I honestly think that it's the former though. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Rand Paul has also admitted he's not as libertarian as his father. so... there's that.
How Libertarian is Ron Paul really?
Rand Paul went harder then that. He denounced being a Libertarian.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"
And then he tip toed back to a comfy spot in the grey zone.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/15/rand-paul-plays-the-maverick-at-cpac-and-the-evangelical-in-cedar-rapids.html“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke ? ,” Paul insisted last Friday while speaking to a group of religious Republicans in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican.
I guess that's settled then.
I don't think that I understand the point or relevance of this thread. You claim that Rand Paul is a hypocritical libertarian, but then you seem to imply that he is strictly not a libertarian and quote him saying just that.
There's also the fact that there are many different kinds of libertarians (yet many people confuse libertarians with anarchists, and even though there might be some overlap, the two can be quite oppositional), and one libertarian can differ vastly from another (e.g., Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul). This is one reason why I never like labels. Who cares what he's called. It's his policies that really matter, and I still see no significant flip-flopping on his part (nevermind the fact that a politician is allowed to genuinely change his views). And his policies may overlap with his father's, but not all of them do. And this fact has only been too obvious, so I don't understand why this would be news. Rand Paul has been and is buddy-buddy with Mitt Romney. That should speak for itself.
I think that Rand Paul is right when he says that he should be looked at independently from his father. Rand Paul is not a carbon copy of his father. Many Ron Paul supporters are very aware of this fact, but some are ignorant, and some aren't but still think that he's a much better alternative than a Mitt Romney or a Barack Obama. I, on the other hand, like Ron Paul, but I'm not and never have been a big fan of Rand Paul for obvious reasons.
One thing for sure is that Rand Paul is looking to further his political career, perhaps a presidential bid in 2016? All I know is that 2016 is certainly going to be a very interesting election year.
This is a simple expose on the position of a man that has strong support for a run for President. Does that bother you?
No, it doesn't bother me, and I still don't see why you would think that. Is what I am saying bothering you?
I have or I think that I have already explained why I think that your "simple expose" doesn't really hold up. If you don't want to respond to that criticism, then that's fine. Otherwise, I am not exactly sure what the topic (if there is any) of this current discussion is... -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Rand Paul has also admitted he's not as libertarian as his father. so... there's that.
How Libertarian is Ron Paul really?
Rand Paul went harder then that. He denounced being a Libertarian.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"
And then he tip toed back to a comfy spot in the grey zone.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/15/rand-paul-plays-the-maverick-at-cpac-and-the-evangelical-in-cedar-rapids.html“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke ? ,” Paul insisted last Friday while speaking to a group of religious Republicans in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican.
I guess that's settled then.
I don't think that I understand the point or relevance of this thread. You claim that Rand Paul is a hypocritical libertarian, but then you seem to imply that he is strictly not a libertarian and quote him saying just that.
There's also the fact that there are many different kinds of libertarians (yet many people confuse libertarians with anarchists, and even though there might be some overlap, the two can be quite oppositional), and one libertarian can differ vastly from another (e.g., Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul). This is one reason why I never like labels. Who cares what he's called. It's his policies that really matter, and I still see no significant flip-flopping on his part (nevermind the fact that a politician is allowed to genuinely change his views). And his policies may overlap with his father's, but not all of them do. And this fact has only been too obvious, so I don't understand why this would be news. Rand Paul has been and is buddy-buddy with Mitt Romney. That should speak for itself.
I think that Rand Paul is right when he says that he should be looked at independently from his father. Rand Paul is not a carbon copy of his father. Many Ron Paul supporters are very aware of this fact, but some are ignorant, and some aren't but still think that he's a much better alternative than a Mitt Romney or a Barack Obama. I, on the other hand, like Ron Paul, but I'm not and never have been a big fan of Rand Paul for obvious reasons.
One thing for sure is that Rand Paul is looking to further his political career, perhaps a presidential bid in 2016? All I know is that 2016 is certainly going to be a very interesting election year.
This is a simple expose on the position of a man that has strong support for a run for President. Does that bother you?
No, it doesn't bother me, and I still don't see why you would think that. Is what I am saying bothering you?
I have or I think that I have already explained why I think that your "simple expose" doesn't really hold up. If you don't want to respond to that criticism, then that's fine. Otherwise, I am not exactly sure what the topic (if there is any) of this current discussion is...
I think that it is self explanatory that he supported drones after he was against drones and seems to have gone full ? and supports drones strikes on citizens on American soil if they are caught committing a crime. Maybe I'm wrong in calling him a Libertarian but it seemed when he first came on the scene, he was running with that title until he decided to broaden himself to capture the vote of a larger portion of the Republican base. From what i deduce, libertarian is synonymous with limited federal government and individualism regardless what other topics they decide to champion.
I just found his stance on marijuana to be interesting because Obama gets so much flack for not legalizing it yet people are cool with Paul not advocating for it either. Btw, he supports jail time for dealers but not users. I depends on the amount i suppose. Maybe this article isn't aimed at you if you take no issue with that. I was willing to give you a more appropriate response but when people nosign me, i get sort of disrespectful. I really didn't care for an answer to the Ron Paul question because Libertarian seems to be a very interchangeable title that's suitable when useful. -
i say it more in this sense: however libertarian you find Ron Paul to be, Rand is self-admittedly less.FuriousOne wrote: »How Libertarian is Ron Paul really?
Less or not at all? -
People are already expected to practice self restraint and they do not. I can not understand how libertarians think society will function well with so little structure and so much opportunity for private enterprises to exploit the populous.
-
eh, i wouldn't say not at all. but then i don't expect either Paul to really meet some heavily libertarian ideals, so i might cut them a little slack.FuriousOne wrote: »Less or not at all?
-
FuriousOne wrote: »I think that it is self explanatory that he supported drones after he was against drones and seems to have gone full ? and supports drones strikes on citizens on American soil if they are caught committing a crime.
Yes, that does seem self-explanatory. But I genuinely question that conclusion, especially in light of his and others’ response to this conclusion. This link offers better explanation imo: blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_flop. In this article, the idea that Paul misspoke, had a brief ? moment, and/or was inarticulate is posited. I honestly believe this conclusion instead, though I could be wrong. But why would Rand Paul have a 13-hour filibuster only to just say the opposite of what he had advocated for so adamantly? In the same article, Rand Paul says this:
I don’t even like Rand Paul very much, but I think that we’re not giving him enough credit and not being very fair about all of this.My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.
Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.
Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.
Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.FuriousOne wrote: »Maybe I'm wrong in calling him a Libertarian but it seemed when he first came on the scene, he was running with that title until he decided to broaden himself to capture the vote of a larger portion of the Republican base.
I think that I agree with this sentiment. Paul seems like he was being an opportunist, though he is a politician, but I still personally expect more from any politician who wants to be called genuine. When it comes to libertarianism, Paul is a half-breed. He has some neo-con tendencies, so that allows him to play the middle-ground. Nevertheless, I do think that in some odd yet consistent way, Paul genuinely believes in some libertarian policies and also believes in some neo-conservative policies as well, so I don’t see it as him faking it and flip-flopping. He just has some complicated beliefs. Meh.FuriousOne wrote: »From what i deduce, libertarian is synonymous with limited federal government and individualism regardless what other topics they decide to champion.
I generally agree, but it can be much more complicated than that imo. Noam Chomsky is a socialist, and he considers himself a libertarian. Libertarianism stretches across the political left as well. The idea that one can believe in libertarianism and big government is possible imo, especially when you consider the difference between negative liberty (conservatives?) and positive liberty (liberals?).FuriousOne wrote: »I just found his stance on marijuana to be interesting because Obama gets so much flack for not legalizing it yet people are cool with Paul not advocating for it either.
If anyone criticizes Obama for not legalizing marijuana and doesn’t do the same to Paul (assuming that he has the same policy), then he is simply hypocritical. Though I’d like to reiterate the fact that many Ron Paul supporters and libertarians DO NOT like Rand Paul. Those that do are either ignorant or simply see Rand Paul as the lesser of the two evils when compared to Obama as well as the more marketable of the two goods when compared to Ron Paul.FuriousOne wrote: »Btw, he supports jail time for dealers but not users. I depends on the amount i suppose.
Hm, that’s interesting. Kind of odd actually. But I’m guessing that he supports jail time for those who sell drugs and break the current law but does not support jail time for users because he sees users as addicts, and we don’t throw alcoholics in prison for being alcoholic right?FuriousOne wrote: »Maybe this article isn't aimed at you if you take no issue with that. I was willing to give you a more appropriate response but when people nosign me, i get sort of disrespectful.
I looked back at you post and can’t exactly remember why I nosigned you, so I took it off for the time being. But when I nosign someone, all it means is that I (respectfully) disagree with something that he is saying. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I think that what he is saying is ? or that I think that he is an idiot; I reserve wacks for things like that.FuriousOne wrote: »I really didn't care for an answer to the Ron Paul question because Libertarian seems to be a very interchangeable title that's suitable when useful.
I’m not sure about that. Yeah, maybe with some people. I don’t even like labels, but I have to admit that if I must be labeled, it would be libertarian. But I’m not an opportunist like that. I know many libertarians who are genuine and hold principled libertarian beliefs.
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »People are already expected to practice self restraint and they do not. I can not understand how libertarians think society will function well with so little structure and so much opportunity for private enterprises to exploit the populous.
That's probably a number one criticism of libertarianism. I could give you a very detailed and personal response, but I'll just try to keep it as brief and coherent as possible.
People are generally stupid and "evil" imo, but the current policy (which is oppression, force, and regulation) is not a viable remedy for this dilemma. I believe that the remedy consists of a very strong emphasis on education, self-rule by individual freedom and liberty (not just socially but economically as well) and by state and local government (with the limited oversight by the federal government), etc. And even then, if people crash and burn, so be it. This is a harsh world, and we can either be delusional or pragmatic. Everyone can't be saved. People have to hold themselves accountable for ther own actions. People need to strive towards knowledge and self-reliance so that they can make the "right" decisions in life. This is why education (and philanthropy and humanism) is very important. And instead of having socialism and excessive laws as safety nets, we need to depend on family, friends, educators, churches/mosques/etc., hospitals, charity, etc. when we hit rock-bottom.
A big reason imo why people are stupid and "evil" is because of the current system that makes them that way because it offers them no freedom. When a man is not free, he is miserable and angry. Malcolm X isn't the only great man who has said this. This is just a very obvious fact. So how can you expect the American people to be happy and civil when massive taxes; (illegal) surveillance; censorship; drug laws; an unofficial two(and only two)-party system; an overpriced monopoly on medicine, education, etc; censorship; perpetual war (let's just pray that the draft doesn't come back); etc. are piled on them? How can they practice self-restraint when they are already so restrained? I'm neck deep in college bills and still living with my old folks, yet I'm still getting mail from my alma mater asking me for money? And yet I'm still getting taxed so that a portion of my hard-earned money goes to wars and other poor people in this country while I'm struggling myself? Doesn't make sense to me. And it ? me off.
As for problem of structure? Structure is ensured by strong local and state government and thus strong and successful representation by a state's local citizens. Instead of a president in Washington D.C. determining what kind of state Texas is going to be like, the local citizens in Texas will determine what kind of state Texas is going to be like through their local and state representatives. This also builds a strong and hopefully more civil/peaceful community at least on the state level. If you hate what your state has become under this new policy, then move to another state and adopt it as your own.
Fraud? State and local governments (and the federal government) will supervise private businesses and make sure that they do not commit the white-collar crimes that they often get away with. I'd personally levy very serious penalities for these crimes, so that private businesses know that ? is real. Property rights is also a very important deterrant.
