Rand Paul: Democrats Should Get ‘Beyond Partisanship’

[Virgil]

NAPLES, Florida — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tells Breitbart News that Senate Democrats need to drop their filibuster of the House-passed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill if they want to show Americans they can move beyond partisanship.

“The disappointing thing about the Democrats is they don’t seem to be able to get beyond partisanship to actually address important issues so I think there’s an important constitutional issue here between the separation of powers,” Paul said in an exclusive interview while on a trip. “It would be nice, I think, if some of the Democrats stood up and said ‘you know what? We need to reassert Congress’ authority even though this is a Democrat president. I will vote for congressional power here as opposed to presidential power.’ But not many of them will do it. In fact, right now none of them will.”

Democrats are currently blockading the DHS funding bill under orders from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid because the bill blocks funding for President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty orders. Some Republican establishment figures say that Congress should water down the bill and remove restrictions on executive amnesty, but Paul said the recent court order from federal judge Andrew S. Hanen that put a hold on Obama’s amnesty means Congress should stay strong and block all of Obama’s executive amnesty.

“It should give Congress even more backbone to stand up and oppose this because the courts have now said it’s illegal and they’re stopping it,” Paul told Breitbart News of the court order.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...bamas-amnesty/

-Virgil

[Sola_Fide]

Pffft....don't see that happening with either side.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Ha. No one in the GOP has any business talking about getting beyond partisanship with their current track record.

[green73]

Ron Paul: There's Way Too Much Bipartisanship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqxCnSNBunM

[specsaregood]

Ha. No one in the GOP has any business talking about getting beyond partisanship with their current track record.

Has not McConnell pledged to allow Dem bills and amendments to come up for a vote? Is he not following through on that?

[francisco]

Ha. No one in the GOP has any business talking about getting beyond partisanship with their current track record.

Isn't Rand in the GOP?

Isn't it true that Rand has reached out to the other side to find common ground on several recent bills--cosponsoring legislation with Cory Booker, Ron Wyden, Boxer and even Reid?

Please retract your statement.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Isn't Rand in the GOP?

Isn't it true that Rand has reached out to the other side to find common ground on several recent bills--cosponsoring legislation with Cory Booker, Ron Wyden, Boxer and even Reid?

Please retract your statement.

Yeah, no, I remember when the GOP reached across the aisle when they were in the minority and didn't stick to partisan hackery, oh wait, no I don't and neither does anyone else here.

[francisco]

Ha. No one in the GOP has any business talking about getting beyond partisanship with their current track record.

Has not McConnell pledged to allow Dem bills and amendments to come up for a vote? Is he not following through on that?

Isn't Rand in the GOP?

Isn't it true that Rand has reached out to the other side to find common ground on several recent bills--cosponsoring legislation with Cory Booker, Ron Wyden, Boxer and even Reid?

Please retract your statement.

Yeah, no, I remember when the GOP reached across the aisle when they were in the minority and didn't stick to partisan hackery, oh wait, no I don't and neither does anyone else here.

neg rep for general obtuseness and negativity. Just to be sure this is warranted, I checked some of your past posts, and...yup.

[William Tell]

neg rep for general obtuseness and negativity. Just to be sure this is warranted, I checked some of your past posts, and...yup.

His name is more and more true, he doesn't smile at all.

[Mr.NoSmile]

neg rep for general obtuseness and negativity. Just to be sure this is warranted, I checked some of your past posts, and...yup.

Yeah, how dare my opinion not line up with yours.

[francisco]

Yeah, how dare my opinion not line up with yours.

My objection to your opinion is not that it is different from mine, but that it is clearly unsupported by the facts.

Around the issue of bi-partisanship, it takes both sides to participate, but the main burden is on the majority, if they want to avoid a charge of steamrolling over the minority, or if they need some level of support from the minority on something even their majority can't advance on its own.

From that standpoint, both McConnell and Rand Paul are acting properly and with integrity, now that they are in the Senate majority. In the case of Rand, he addressed the need for bridge-building around shared concerns, and reached out to the other side (for example, with Wyden on security-state issues) even when the GOP was in the minority, so your assertion is even further discredited.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, how dare my opinion not line up with yours.

I guess you never heard of the McCain-Feinstein Bill. Or the McCain-Kennedy Bill.

How your opinion manages to dare to vary from others around here is actually amazingly simple. You're wrong.

[Mr.NoSmile]

I guess you never heard of the McCain-Feinstein Bill. Or the McCain-Kennedy Bill.

How your opinion manages to dare to vary from others around here is actually amazingly simple. You're wrong.

Except...McCain-Kennedy Bill itself was never voted on in the Senate and the McCain-Feinstein (I take it you mean Feingold?) Bill wasn't the version that became law.

[Olaf]

Turning the tables on democrats. Rand is a genius, a master chess player. This is the kind of stuff that shows how much smarter and capable of winning Rand is as opposed to his father.

[acptulsa]

Except...McCain-Kennedy Bill itself was never voted on in the Senate and the McCain-Feinstein (I take it you mean Feingold?) Bill wasn't the version that became law.

And that means none of us remember any bipartisanship because...? Because we are all, like yourself, twelve years old?

How about the rush to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or the so-called PATRIOT Act?

[Smitty]

Democrats are currently blockading the DHS funding bill

Sounds good to me. Why does Rand want the funding bill to pass?

[Mr.NoSmile]

And that means none of us remember any bipartisanship because...? Because we are all, like yourself, twelve years old?

How about the rush to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or the so-called PATRIOT Act?

Good guess, but way off. I figured people gave it awhile before delving into the whole 'How old are you really' game that's so popular on message boards. Do stick to the subject, please. Also, no one said that you forgot bipartisanship, so thanks again.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, no, I remember when the GOP reached across the aisle when they were in the minority and didn't stick to partisan hackery, oh wait, no I don't and neither does anyone else here.

Also, no one said that you forgot bipartisanship, so thanks again.

Easy to declare yourself the winner when you aren't especially particular how much you contradict yourself.

[Spikender]

Turning the tables on democrats. Rand is a genius, a master chess player. This is the kind of stuff that shows how much smarter and capable of winning Rand is as opposed to his father.

Ron Paul is too honest to play politics.

That makes him no less and no smarter than anyone else. Take your backhanded compliments elsewhere.

[Olaf]

Ron Paul is too honest to play politics.

That makes him no less and no smarter than anyone else. Take your backhanded compliments elsewhere.

Ron Paul wasn't too honest to play politics, how do you think he got reelected in his congressional district? It's because he brought home the pork barrel spending. He earmarked tens of millions of dollars in corporate welfare to keep the big businesses in his district happy and as a reward for not financially backing an opponent. That's the only reason he wasn't primaries. He was never popular in his district with regular voters, evidenced clearly by the fact that he badly lost his district in both the 2008 and 2012 Texas GOP presidential primaries. He won his congressional races because voters in his district will vote for anyone with an R next to their name and he kept the corporate parasites happy with the cash handouts.

[acptulsa]

So that's why the establishment's every attempt to primary Ron Paul out of his House seat failed! That explains all those available facts--like the House primary victories--so much better than the fact the press had written Ron off by Super Tuesday does.

[Olaf]

It wasn't just the press that had written Ron Paul off, it was GOP voters. And it wasn't by Super Tuesday, it was the day he announced his campaign.

But sure, don't address the fact that Ron Paul earmarked tens of millions of dollars in corporate welfare throughout his time in congress.

[acptulsa]

What member of the House didn't? The big difference was that Ron Paul actually voted against all that pork. And it's nice of you to admit that the press was trying to torpedo him from the start. But that's nothing but a compliment to the man.

You having fun quizzing us on a bunch of crap we discredited years ago? If this $#@! didn't stick then, what makes you dumb enough to think it'll stick now? And what makes you think any of it makes Ron Paul look worse than the 434 more corrupt members of the House?

Never mind. I don't actually care.

[Olaf]

The entire House might have done it, but that doesn't make Ron Paul any less of a hypocrite for adding corporate welfare to bills and claiming he opposed it.

Him voting against the final passage of the bill is a laughable deflection from the reality. Those bills were going to pass with or without his vote. He knew that but voted no just to use it as a defense for his hypocritical action of endorsing corporate welfare through earmarks for big businesses in his district.

[acptulsa]

The entire House might have done it, but that doesn't make Ron Paul any less of a hypocrite for adding corporate welfare to bills and claiming he opposed it.

Him voting against the final passage of the bill is a laughable deflection from the reality. Those bills were going to pass with or without his vote. He knew that but voted no just to use it as a defense for his hypocritical action of endorsing corporate welfare through earmarks for big businesses in his district.

And all the more a hypocrite for Speaking out against them and being the only person in Congress doing so. So he was obviously worse than the straight crooks who said nothing, because being purely crooked they weren't hypocrites. Obviously he should have screwed his constituents and gotten thrown out aft two years. Naturally he would have accomplished much more that way.

My you're tiresome with your most convincing imitation of a perfect ass.

[Olaf]

He wasn't the only person in Congress to be against earmarks. And him claiming to b against earmarks is hypocritical because he inserted tens of millions of dollars of corporate welfare earmarks into bills he knew would pass. He made those bills worse.

[acptulsa]

He wasn't the only person in Congress to be against earmarks. And him claiming to b against earmarks is hypocritical because he inserted tens of millions of dollars of corporate welfare earmarks into bills he knew would pass. He made those bills worse.

Now, eduardo, you know that's subjective.

[Olaf]

And further enriching an already wealthy select few in his district through corporate welfare is hardly a noble act.

If he wanted to return money to his constituency in manner that would actually benefit the majority of his constituents he should have voted for infrastructure projects in his district, not for handouts for big business with political connections.

He should have been thrown out after one term for being a hypocrite. I don't see Massie or Amash using corporate welfare as a tactic to stay in office.

[acptulsa]

Enough ancient history.

So, how is it you come to know all about Sola_Fide but know nothing of eduardo? I think you're giving his reputation too much credit and selling your own short.

[Olaf]

Enough ancient history.

So, how is it you come to know all about Sola_Fide but know nothing of eduardo? I think you're giving his reputation too much credit and selling your own short.

I've interacted with Sola_Fide in two or three threads and I read through them from the beginning. I haven't interacted with eduardo yet, though.