What issues do Rand Paul and Ron Paul disagree on?

[Fr3shjive]

I support Rand Paul but he's said in a few interviews that he doesnt agree with his father on all issues. What are the issues that he disagrees on with his father?

[low preference guy]

Rand returns some donations.
Ron thinks returning donations is like letting bad people have more money.

Rand supports closing Guantanamo sometime in the future.
Ron supports closing it right now.

That's about it. For other issues they just present the message differently.

[emazur]

Ron wants to end the war on drugs, Rand doesn't

[low preference guy]

Ron wants to end the war on drugs, Rand doesn't

False. I think you're confused from how Rand talks about drugs.

If true, source?

[sevin]

Ron wants to end the war on drugs, Rand doesn't

link?

[Fr3shjive]

I was worried about him on foreign policy but I just listened to him discuss his foreign policy and he does it a lot more eloquently than his Ron Paul. He explains himself so that he doesn’t work up the neo-cons.

If he has 1/2 the integrity of his father he could be the President that will get America back on track.

Seems like a better politician than his father. Im not sure if thats a good thing or a bad thing.

[silus]

Ron wants to leave the middle east now, Rand wants to restore some semblance of stability.

I think...

[BamaFanNKy]

Ron wants to end the war on drugs, Rand doesn't

http://pipefittermadison.com/images/bullshit.jpg

[low preference guy]

Ron wants to leave the middle east now, Rand wants to restore some semblance of stability.

I think...

I disagree. Rand went as far as saying that we need to have a debate on what national security is and when it's threatened. He never said we need to stabilize before leaving or anything like that.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Rand Paul wants to eliminate all earmarks. Ron Paul is one of the biggest porkers in D.C.

[Fr3shjive]

Rand Paul wants to eliminate all earmarks. Ron Paul is one of the biggest porkers in D.C.

These seems like some really trivial differences. Why even mention that you disagree on any issues when the ones that they differ on are so insignificant?

I'd really like to hear from somebody who might know Rand's positions and where he stands.

[silus]

Rand Paul wants to eliminate all earmarks. Ron Paul is one of the biggest porkers in D.C.
The way you talk about this issue makes me think you should stop talking about it all together.

[sevin]

hmm... another thread looking for excuses to stop Ron Paul supporters from backing Rand Paul? ugh

[Fr3shjive]

hmm... another thread looking for excuses to stop Ron Paul supporters from backing Rand Paul? ugh
Hardly. I've already donated to Rand's campaign but I am interested in knowing the differences. Would you really support somebody if you dont know where they stand on important issues?

There is nothing wrong with being informed.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The way you talk about this issue makes me think you should stop talking about it all together.

I don't think so. I've made it clear in the past, even back in 2007, that this was an issue I disagreed with Ron Paul on. Maybe even the only one.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2i78qyh.jpg

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say Congress needs to give money to private companies to market their products.

[silus]

I don't think so. I've made it clear in the past, even back in 2007, that this was an issue I disagreed with Ron Paul on. Maybe even the only one.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2i78qyh.jpg

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say Congress needs to give money to private companies to market their products.
Can you please figure out what your argument is. Are you talking about what the earmarks are for or that he requests them altogether.

[Taco John]

I wish they would earmark every dollar in Washington. What sense does it make to turn that cash over to czars to spend how they like?

Of course, I wish they'd drain the swamp and eliminate the need for earmarks altogether, but since that isn't in the immediate works, earmark away.

[emazur]

False. I think you're confused from how Rand talks about drugs.

If true, source?
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/

I do not support eliminating all federal laws or penalties on marijuana. I do believe, in general, that issues of crime and punishment are best handled at the state level.

I do believe that drug addiction (including alcohol, tobacco, and legal prescription drugs) is a serious problem. I do not think the federal government should mandate ten year sentences for drug possession. I think justice is better meted out by local judges in each community. I agree with Cal Thomas, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson that if a teenager is caught with drugs that counseling is preferred over federal laws which sometimes require ten years in jail.

This is how I interpret it:
"Though I'd prefer drug matters to be handled at the state level, I will make no attempt to do anything to stop the federal government going after recreational marijuana users, and certainly not users of heavier drugs. Though it would probably be best to end federal laws on medical marijuana. 10 years in jail for smoking a joint? Now that seems a little harsh - perhaps counseling would be a much better option. And if they do not respond to the treatment? Well, we can't have that... And though I'd rather have counseling than prison time, as I said I do not support repealing all federal laws against marijuana, so if a federal drug enforcement agent encounters a pot smoking individual and tells him to stop but the user refuses to do so, then it is acceptable to use force against the user."

I'd be happy to be proven wrong. But given that Rand's ads go after "draft dodger" Bill Clinton, he seems to think that there are instances when the federal government has first claim on what an individual does with his life. Of course I'm hoping that all this is just campaign rhetoric so he can penetrate the thick skulls of neocon Kentucky voters, I still have some reservations about Rand, though I hope he'll win - he'd certainly be the best ally in the Senate (2nd best if Schiff wins).

[BlackTerrel]

Very Very little I believe. They may differ in how they present it... but overall they are almost the same on the important issues.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Also, and correct me if I am wrong, but Rand believes that terrorist suspects can be tried in military tribunals, while Ron thinks civilian courts are the right way to proceed.

[nobody's_hero]

I don't think so. I've made it clear in the past, even back in 2007, that this was an issue I disagreed with Ron Paul on. Maybe even the only one.

No, you're not the only one. Don't listen to Silus.

I've seen some of the rediculous things that go into earmarks that Ron Paul has requested.

[low preference guy]

I do not support eliminating all federal laws or penalties on marijuana

Prohibiting to import marijuana from hostile countries like Afghanistan is a federal law and penalty or marijuana.

Did you read where he said he prefers counseling to jail?

[John Taylor]

False. I think you're confused from how Rand talks about drugs.

If true, source?

Rand stated that he doesn't support getting rid of ALL federal laws controlling weed... and instead of knowing precisely why he used such language, some ideological purists who would rather make a stand on every issue in a closed primary and lose, got mad...

[John Taylor]

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-responds-to-attacks/


This is how I interpret it:
"Though I'd prefer drug matters to be handled at the state level, I will make no attempt to do anything to stop the federal government going after recreational marijuana users, and certainly not users of heavier drugs. Though it would probably be best to end federal laws on medical marijuana. 10 years in jail for smoking a joint? Now that seems a little harsh - perhaps counseling would be a much better option. And if they do not respond to the treatment? Well, we can't have that... And though I'd rather have counseling than prison time, as I said I do not support repealing all federal laws against marijuana, so if a federal drug enforcement agent encounters a pot smoking individual and tells him to stop but the user refuses to do so, then it is acceptable to use force against the user."

I'd be happy to be proven wrong. But given that Rand's ads go after "draft dodger" Bill Clinton, he seems to think that there are instances when the federal government has first claim on what an individual does with his life. Of course I'm hoping that all this is just campaign rhetoric so he can penetrate the thick skulls of neocon Kentucky voters, I still have some reservations about Rand, though I hope he'll win - he'd certainly be the best ally in the Senate (2nd best if Schiff wins).


I think your interpretation is mistaken. He said he didn't support getting rid of ALL drug laws... that is so he doesn't get crucified by his opponents in the race, guys who would run ads saying "Rand Paul wants your kids to be on meth!!!".

[Justinjj1]

Ron Paul takes clear stances on issues and Rand waffles around and speaks in platitudes. There is no way that you can pin Rand down on believing in anything with the language that he uses.

[Fozz]

Ron Paul takes clear stances on issues and Rand waffles around and speaks in platitudes. There is no way that you can pin Rand down on believing in anything with the language that he uses.

I understand his positions pretty well. You are a moron.

[John Taylor]

Ron Paul takes clear stances on issues and Rand waffles around and speaks in platitudes. There is no way that you can pin Rand down on believing in anything with the language that he uses.

You're a fool. Ron ran in 1996 on the platform "He'll run the drugs out of Texas". OK? Rand has to win a primary, and a general election, BEFORE he'll be in the position Ron has been in for the past 14 years... in the Bully Pulpit of incumbency.

[Elwar]

Rand Paul is different from Ron Paul in that there is an 'a' instead of an 'o'...and an extra 'd' at the end of his first name.

I'm surprised nobody caught that...

[constituent]

Ron ran in 1996 on the platform "He'll run the drugs out of Texas". OK?

No he didn't. You've now repeated this claim a number of times, have been asked for proof a number of times, and have failed repeatedly to provide any proof to back this assertion.

What gives?

See, I remember him running on "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" and "Doctor Ronald Paul blah blah blah." Of course, what do I know? I was only a freshman in high school living in his district...

Maybe you've got a newspaper article or a campaign commercial from back then? I'd certainly be interested in seeing it if so... :)

[John Taylor]

No he didn't. You've now repeated this claim a number of times, have been asked for proof a number of times, and have failed repeatedly to provide any proof to back this assertion.

What gives?

See, I remember him running on "The Taxpayer's Best Friend" and "Doctor Ronald Paul blah blah blah." Of course, what do I know? I was only a freshman in high school living in his district...

Maybe you've got a newspaper article or a campaign commercial from back then? I'd certainly be interested in seeing it if so... :)

He did, and you can ask Rachel Mills and his congressional campaign if you want to see the old material. I'm just saying, running in a primary requires the targeting of primary voters, and requires candidates to not alienate folks... so, Rand, like Ron before him, has to focus on issues which people care about. That isn't Iraq right now, it's the deficit, it's the fed, it's crazy spending, it's socialism...

[Justinjj1]

Ok, so when Rand says that he wants to declare war on Afghanistan, keep Guantanamo Bay open, robustly fund the military, and "get tough" on Iran, he doesn' t really mean that. I guess he doesn't really mean that Sarah Palin would be a great president either. I guess that I'm such a moron, idiot, fool, etc. that I can't seem to make the mental gymnastics necessary to decipher Rand's messages in his statements or press releases to determine what he actually means.

[John Taylor]

Ok, so when Rand says that he wants to declare war on Afghanistan, keep Guantanamo Bay open, robustly fund the military, and "get tough" on Iran, he doesn' t really mean that. I guess he doesn't really mean that Sarah Palin would be a great president either. I guess that I'm such a moron, idiot, fool, etc. that I can't seem to make the mental gymnastics necessary to decipher Rand's messages in his statements or press releases to determine what he actually means.

Ron voted TO GO TO WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN. Ron wants to robustly fund the military, and Rand has said he'd cut overall expenditures by the military while increasing the percentage of the budget spent on defense.

You need to get your vision checked.

[Justinjj1]

You think Ron Paul would vote today to declare war on Afghanistan? Because Ive never heard him say anything like that.

[Fozz]

Ok, so when Rand says that he wants to declare war on Afghanistan, keep Guantanamo Bay open, robustly fund the military, and "get tough" on Iran, he doesn' t really mean that. I guess he doesn't really mean that Sarah Palin would be a great president either. I guess that I'm such a moron, idiot, fool, etc. that I can't seem to make the mental gymnastics necessary to decipher Rand's messages in his statements or press releases to determine what he actually means.

Nobody on this board is as dense as you are.

You need to STFU.

[TruthisTreason]

You think Ron Paul would vote today to declare war on Afghanistan? Because Ive never heard him say anything like that.

Pick a color:
http://amyruttan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/1574576278_842b8978b1.jpg

[constituent]

He did, and you can ask Rachel Mills and his congressional campaign if you want to see the old material.

I actually remember watching his commercials when they aired. Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon a video at the Salvation Army in Victoria that had all of his old campaign commercials on it... I'll try to find it, b/c like I said, there was nothing there about running the drugs out of Texas.

I don't need to ask Rachel Mills about it... but perhaps she'll drop in here and save your sinking ship. :)

[Fozz]

You think Ron Paul would vote today to declare war on Afghanistan? Because Ive never heard him say anything like that.

Yes, Rand Paul is a secret neocon who is deceiving our movement and betraying all of us who gave him support. He is selling out and will soon be in lockstep with Mitch McConnell and Sarah Palin. He will advocate war with Iran, and advocate a draft. You see, he really is a neocon who is pretending to be like us. He is a member of the CFR as well, and to the betrayal of his father, he secretly wants to subvert this nation's sovereignty to bring about a New World Order.

[constituent]

Yes, Rand Paul is a secret neocon who is deceiving our movement and betraying all of us who gave him support. He is selling out and will soon be in lockstep with Mitch McConnell and Sarah Palin. He will advocate war with Iran, and advocate a draft. You see, he really is a neocon who is pretending to be like us.

being a dick to your "allies" over their concerns is a great way to win supporters!

[Fozz]

being a dick to your "allies" over their concerns is a great way to win supporters!

1) He doesn't have that many posts

2) Just about all of his recent posts bash Rand Paul and insinuate that he's a neocon and fraud.

3) People have explained Rand's positions to Justin, yet even after he pledged to stop posting about Rand Paul, he continues to utter this nonsense.

[John Taylor]

I actually remember watching his commercials when they aired. Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon a video at the Salvation Army in Victoria that had all of his old campaign commercials on it... I'll try to find it, b/c like I said, there was nothing there about running the drugs out of Texas.

I don't need to ask Rachel Mills about it... but perhaps she'll drop in here and save your sinking ship. :)

My point stands regardless of whether we can find internet proof of the ad or not. Ron ran in 1996, not as an anti-interventionist crusader intent on cutting the military budget, but on a platform of fiscal sanity. That is what Rand is doing as well.

[John Taylor]

1) he doesn't have that many posts

2) just about all of his recent posts bash rand paul and insinuate that he's a neocon and fraud.

3) people have explained rand's positions to justin, yet even after he pledged to stop posting about rand paul, he continues to utter this nonsense.

+1776.

[constituent]

1) He doesn't have that many posts

2) Just about all of his recent posts bash Rand Paul and insinuate that he's a neocon and fraud.

3) People have explained Rand's positions to Justin, yet even after he pledged to stop posting about Rand Paul, he continues to utter this nonsense.

I know it can be difficult, but it's better to look past the character you're discussing with to try and view the reader who is following along. :)

[Fozz]

I know it can be difficult, but it's better to look past the character you're discussing with to try and view the reader who is following along. :)
I can understand people being skeptical of Rand Paul and questioning how genuine he is as a liberty candidate......even I had that concern back in November.

But what Justin has been doing is different. He is asserting that Rand Paul is a warmonger or just a typical Republican who is betraying our movement, just to be an idiot.

Rand Paul is definitely NOT a neocon but when he runs for Senate in a state like Kentucky, he cannot get elected if he talks like a pacifist. I for one am glad that he believes all wars need to be constitutionally declared, and he will be very cautious about voting on a war.

[emazur]

I actually remember watching his commercials when they aired. Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon a video at the Salvation Army in Victoria that had all of his old campaign commercials on it... I'll try to find it, b/c like I said, there was nothing there about running the drugs out of Texas.

I don't need to ask Rachel Mills about it... but perhaps she'll drop in here and save your sinking ship. :)

I don't see the words 'running the drugs out' used, but I managed to find something related (this is a very good article BTW):
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-son-also-rises-ron-paul-s-son-rand-paul-makes-big-impression

When Ron decided to return to Congress in 1996, the national Republican leadership had a different idea: They persuaded Democratic congressman Greg Laughlin to switch parties and run for re-election in his Texas district as a Republican. Paul had to challenge Laughlin in the primary. Former President George H.W. Bush, then-Gov. George W. Bush, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich all enthusiastically supported Laughlin. “I did not see a single Dallas Cowboys fan boo Deion Sanders,” Gingrich said as he tried to persuade Texans to embrace another team switcher.

Ron Paul tapped a national army of libertarians to finance his campaign, raising more than 60 percent of his funds outside the district. But he also pitched himself as the true conservative—his lifetime American Conservative Union rating at the time was 91 out of 100 to Laughlin’s middling 56—by touting his early ties to Reagan and finessing his differences with mainstream Republicans.

“They tried to paint me as a drug pusher,” Paul later complained to Campaigns & Elections magazine, “but the voters weren’t buying it. I had never advocated legalization and they knew it. I had condemned the federal war on drugs.…It’s had just terrible consequences.” Paul’s campaign manager in that race, Mark Elam, even took issue with Laughlin’s criticisms of his candidate on the first Iraq war. “That was completely outrageous,” he said, stating that Paul had opposed the decision to go to war but “fully supported our effort once the war was underway.” Ron Paul won the primary and went on to be the most consistently libertarian member of Congress, representing a congressional district that voted for George W. Bush and John McCain.

Actually this is what I find disturbing:

The Rand Paul campaign also uses a somewhat different tone than Ron Paul’s on military spending: “In Rand’s proposed budget, defense spending would represent a larger percentage of the total budget than it does today, while military spending on unnecessary programs and unconstitutional operations would be eliminated.” Says Rand Paul campaign manager David Adams: “What people are seeing is that despite what our opponent says, Rand is actually very strong on national defense. He believes in doing what it takes to keep the American people safe and secure.”

So cut wasteful military spending but increase the overall spending? I'm for a strong national defense but we already spend too much

[low preference guy]

So cut wasteful military spending but increase the overall spending? I'm for a strong national defense but we already spend too much

He wants to increase the percentage but cut the absolute number.

[Fr3shjive]

I don't see the words 'running the drugs out' used, but I managed to find something related (this is a very good article BTW):
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-son-also-rises-ron-paul-s-son-rand-paul-makes-big-impression


Actually this is what I find disturbing:


So cut wasteful military spending but increase the overall spending? I'm for a strong national defense but we already spend too much

I agree that it is disturbing that he wants to increase defense spending. Seriously?!

That makes him come across as very hawkish.

YouTube - Rand Paul National Defense/Foreign Policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76lb9kAbXr4)

This video makes me feel a little better though. Hopefully he changes his mind that we need to cut military spending.

[John Taylor]

I agree that it is disturbing that he wants to increase defense spending. Seriously?!

That makes him come across as very hawkish.

YouTube - Rand Paul National Defense/Foreign Policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76lb9kAbXr4)

This video makes me feel a little better though. Hopefully he changes his mind that we need to cut military spending.

Are you being deliberately dense??? Rand says he will reduce the OVERALL expenditures on defense, but will INCREASE, as a percentage of government expenditures, the amount spent. Is this THAT difficult to comprehend???

[low preference guy]

I agree that it is disturbing that he wants to increase defense spending. Seriously?!


He wants to increase the percentage but cut the absolute number.

How do you that? By cutting everything else at a huge rate.

He does not want to increase military spending. He wants to cut it! That's in the Trey Grayson attack ads. Go to his page and see.

[silus]

No, you're not the only one. Don't listen to Silus.

I've seen some of the rediculous things that go into earmarks that Ron Paul has requested.
Again. Figure out what your argument is. Are you against earmarks all together, or against specific earmarks.