They tell you he's not the same as his father, despite the fact that we regularly run into him making comments that espouse similar positions on defense, immigration, gay marriage, drugs, Abortion, Social Issues, et al. He often emends those comments; but suspicions of Rand Paul aren't just entirely due to his last name. They're due to his expressed positions uttered before he gets the chance to gray them up semantically with the help of professionals.
Strangely enough, we hear from his supporters that he's a serious presidential contender because he's already got a national infrastructure. Oh, really? A first-term Senator from Kentucky has a national presidential infrastructure? How is this so? I'll tell you what they mean: they mean Ron Paul's infrastructure. Interesting how Rand can just seamlessly fill in for Ron and not lose any of his father's supporters, despite their supposed major differences.
I really hope Ron Paul runs in 2016. In fact, we need to raise some hell and make some noise and draft him to run! Maybe if both Ron and Rand run, we can have a real discussion about their major issue differences!
Don't be fooled. There's a reason all Ron Paul supporters are behind Rand, and it's not because he's a Reaganite Republican, or because he's so different from his father. It's because they know, just like we know, the differences are miscible.
I don’t care much about social issues. Financial issues interest me. Like taxes and spending which lead to overwhelming control by the Federal government.
Is any of that really true? I see people who aren’t crazy for Cruz and build up Paul as an alternative, but haven’t heard from people who are as solid for Rand Paul up and down the line as you say.
why rand? have the libtards gotten what they want by “softening” or hae they stronarmed their enemies into softening?
putz. he’ s dead to me. you don’ t get the job done with a soft boner. i think we see how successful that’s been in the House.
Rand’s right. The war over gay marriage is largely over. Even if Roe were overturned tomorrow, many states would still have abortion. The pro-life movement has being doing a great job on changing people’s minds about a abortion on a personal level. But translating that to change on political level is a different matter.
I am so sick and tired of people who want me to compromise my values system, so I can support people who think doing vile things is just a matter of free will and choice.
I have not abandoned morals, and I’m not about to.
That is nothing but a euphemism for supporting abortion and Gay Marriage.
If the GOP backs off those issues, it will be time for a third party and that party would win almost every election.
Interesting analysis but what does the word "miscible" mean in this context?
Rand Paul is every bit as good a candidate as his dad.
Plenty of libertarian libertines will support Rand. They are more worried about their weed than if the country goes to HELL in a hand basket. Many are Jews haters and anti-Christians as well. The Funny thing is these âPaulistâ and Paul himself talk about Founding Father so much, but they never seem to get around to the Founding Fathers quotes regarding the need of a Republic of have a solid belief and following in Judeo-Christian ethics for the Republic to survive.
Why not get out the old fraternity paddle why don’t ya’? “Thank you sir, may I have another”.
Maybe we could bring back the social issue of all time: slavery. Hey, it’s only people, people.
lol. Another FREEPER lover down the tubes. How about somebody with principles for a change. Scott Walker, Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum. You pick these ridiculous people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz who turn out to be shams and wonder why they fooled you. Pick a true conservative for a change.
Sounds to me that Rand Paul is starting to rant like a true ‘anything to win’ political person. I will go with a person who stands for upholding what this Nation was intended to be even though day by day political people like the Pauls would chip away at such. This does not mean I throw out all what the Pauls try to explain, but I do not accept them as of now as voice for the USA.
Officially softening up on life, family, marriage, borders, guns, strong defense, etc, will officially mark the end of the GOP.
Going soft on social issues is a slippery road to financial and economic ruin as well. When there are not morals, the there is no problem with excessive taxation, excessive regulation e.t.c.
There is an attitude that somehow fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive groups. There are large numbers of social conservatives who are also strong fiscal conservatives. I also find many social conservatives who have strong libertarian leanings.
Politicians who try to separate away fiscal conservatives from social conservatives, I think, may end up in defeat. Many special interests would like to see this separation, however they also don't have any interest in seeing conservatives win.
How can Republicans get any softer? Our leadership has the resolve and spine of cooked linguine.
If not for the rank and file that they need to make anything work, guys like Boehner would have teamed up with McCain, Obama, Pelosi and Reid to destroy this country long ago. They may succeed yet.
If Rand Paul really made such a statement, he proved beyond a doubt, that he is way too dense to lead a horse to water or sell water to a man dying of thirst on the desert.
I like Paul, but Life and Marriage are off the table for me. There can be no agree to disagree on these two issues. Civil Union is as far as I am willing to go on same sex marriage.
Psssst....Rand. That isn't new, or unique. We've been hearing it since Goldwater. Oh and one more thing -- it doesn't work.