Rand Paul loves the Drone: Drudge Report

[Lightweis]

Drudgereport.com Front and center! Ouch

[sailingaway]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=8167561

[american.swan]

While technically not a flip-flop, I understand the backlash. Rand should have worded that better.

[Aratus]

he sounded Texan... this is not like Gentleman Mitt's classic and many flipflops that we experienced in full last year

[Sola_Fide]

Sorry, but he deserves it.

People think I am crazy when I have been saying that all of these deviations from the liberty position are going to be a detriment, not an asset to a Rand 2016 run. But this is just another example of it.

Every time that Rand compromises on a liberty position for the sake of some electability that he thinks he is going to get, he will lose more and more support and excitement.

[rockandrollsouls]

So one headline on Drudge outweighs the fact the filibuster has him leading in presidential primary state polls? And the numerous other things I won't even begin to mention...

Hugeeeee detriment. :rolleyes: Fact of the matter is all politicians receive negative press at some point. Rand has absolutely minimized what he gets. You can't avoid it all.

And by the way, I don't see "deviations" from liberty positions. Not at all.


Sorry, but he deserves it.

People think I am crazy when I have been saying that all of these deviations from the liberty position are going to be a detriment, not an asset to a Rand 2016 run. But this is just another example of it.

Every time that Rand compromises on a liberty position for the sake of some electability that he thinks he is going to get, he will lose more and more support and excitement.

[Rudeman]

Sorry, but he deserves it.

People think I am crazy when I have been saying that all of these deviations from the liberty position are going to be a detriment, not an asset to a Rand 2016 run. But this is just another example of it.

Every time that Rand compromises on a liberty position for the sake of some electability that he thinks he is going to get, he will lose more and more support and excitement.

I won't judge whether you're crazy or not, but I do think you're wrong. The polls have shown how effective he's been. Just compare where he was at in January to where he's at today. Huge difference in media exposure, name recognition, and he even won over some of those that were still pissed about the Romney endorsement.

You may disagree with it, but clearly the results as of now don't back up your position.

[Sola_Fide]

I won't judge whether you're crazy or not, but I do think you're wrong. The polls have shown how effective he's been. Just compare where he was at in January to where he's at today. Huge difference in media exposure, name recognition, and he even won over some of those that were still pissed about the Romney endorsement.

You may disagree with it, but clearly the results as of now don't back up your position.

It doesn't matter. There is no way that Rand can beat Hillary without the independent vote.

[Maximus]

It's not a "deviation of liberty" you people just are unable to get the idea of a true "imminent threat" in your heads:

If someone robs a store and is shooting into the neighborhood and acting crazy, you damn well have a right to take him down.

Imminent threat is self defense. You all talked about missiles blowing up apartment buildings and that is not what Rand said at ALL.

We are our own worst enemy.

[Rudeman]

It doesn't matter. There is no way that Rand can beat Hillary without the independent vote.

Right, but he first needs to win the Republican nomination. Otherwise his chances are 0. If he's able to win the nomination then at least he has a fighter's chance. Hillary will be a tough one to beat though, hopefully she has a tough primary to take her down a notch.

[fr33]

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=779


"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."

[matt0611]

I think Rand worded that poorly but I don't see why he is wrong fundamentally.

If someone is actively engaged in violence and apprehension is not an option then you can use force to stop them.

[Luieburger]

Stop freaking out. Nothing has changed. He worded his sentence incorrectly. It happens to everybody. By tomorrow morning, this will be old news.

Keep calm, carry on.