Rand tries to regain 4th Amendment credibility again

[Matt Collins]

And here is Rand attempting to regain credibility on the 4th Amendment even though he just voted to seat a Supreme Court Justice who was ok with blatantly violating it.




Why didn't he publicly ask Kavanaugh if it was ok for the FBI to violate the 4th Amendment?






https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1050045944555888640

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1050051828073795585

[phill4paul]

This has already been explained. You keep ignoring it. Quit spreading falsehoods.


https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/13/b...enter-v-united

[timosman]

Rand Paul To Christopher Wray: Are President Trump's Calls Being Collected By NSA or FBI
https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-By-NSA-or-FBI

[Matt Collins]

This has already been explained. You keep ignoring it. Quit spreading falsehoods.


https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/13/b...enter-v-united

That doesn't actually explain anything. Kavanaugh's actions are very telling about his support for breaking the 4th Amendment.

[Swordsmyth]

That doesn't actually explain anything. Kavanaugh's actions are very telling about his support for breaking the 4th Amendment.

You can claim Rand is gullible if you wish but that doesn't mean he has no 4thA credibility.

[thoughtomator]

Rand understands that nobody will have any liberty whatsoever if the Communists take over, and also how close they actually are to taking over.

Securing liberty does not involve being a virtue signaling pretend-to-principles ignoramus with a limited understanding of the big picture. It involves taking the best options available, and not taking a bad option just because the most preferred option isn't on the table.

[eleganz]

Rand Paul has plenty of 4A credibility. More than anybody here can claim with their zero sum game mentality.

[phill4paul]

That doesn't actually explain anything. Kavanaugh's actions are very telling about his support for breaking the 4th Amendment.

It DOES actually explain quite a bit WRT Rand's support of Kavanaugh after their discussions with each other. It just doesn't conform to the outcome you wish it to. The lack of time you spend here, and the amount of time spent bashing Rand when you do, only makes it appear that you have burned so many bridges in the libertarian and Republican political circles that you're virtue signalling to the libtards in an effort to get some kind of job in their circles. Perhaps you can't $#@! up making a cup of chai tea.

[Matt Collins]

You can claim Rand is gullible if you wish but that doesn't mean he has no 4thA credibility.

After voting for Kavanaugh, he has no 4A credibility.

[Matt Collins]

Rand understands that nobody will have any liberty whatsoever if the Communists take over, and also how close they actually are to taking over.

The statists have long since taken over.

It involves taking the best options available, and not taking a bad option just because the most preferred option isn't on the table.

Wrong. This is bad political strategy that is guaranteed to let the progressives win. Settle for nothing less than 100%, go on the offensive at every opportunity. And there was a choice that was better than Kavanuagh, Trump didn't even want him.

[Matt Collins]

It DOES actually explain quite a bit WRT Rand's support of Kavanaugh after their discussions with each other.

No, not at all. Kavanaugh never said he was wrong in regards to his opinions on the 4th. And he never said he would rule with the Constitution instead of with the government in the future. And he never apologized for ruling against the Constitution in the past.

It just doesn't conform to the outcome you wish it to. The lack of time you spend here, and the amount of time spent bashing Rand when you do, only makes it appear that you have burned so many bridges in the libertarian and Republican political circles that you're virtue signalling to the libtards in an effort to get some kind of job in their circles. Perhaps you can't $#@! up making a cup of chai tea.

I have no idea what this statement even means as it doesn't make any sense

[Swordsmyth]

After voting for Kavanaugh, he has no 4A credibility.

In your mind, but nobody cares what you think.

[Swordsmyth]

The statists have long since taken over.

And communists are much worse.

Wrong. This is bad political strategy that is guaranteed to let the progressives win. Settle for nothing less than 100%, go on the offensive at every opportunity. And there was a choice that was better than Kavanuagh, Trump didn't even want him.

Then we couldn't get him and therefore your strategy would have made a bad situation worse, tilt and windmills all you want but stop throwing stone at someone who chooses a less than perfect outcome over a disaster.

[timosman]

Does Collins have a depressing avatar?

[specsaregood]

In your mind, but nobody cares what you think.

It would help if you all would just ignore the little devil.

[thoughtomator]

Wrong. This is bad political strategy that is guaranteed to let the progressives win. Settle for nothing less than 100%, go on the offensive at every opportunity. And there was a choice that was better than Kavanuagh, Trump didn't even want him.

And your record of political success that makes you an authority greater than Senator Rand Paul on political strategy is... ?

[Matt Collins]

And communists are much worse.

Communists are statists. You need to lean what a Venn Diagram is.

Then we couldn't get him and therefore your strategy would have made a bad situation worse, tilt and windmills all you want but stop throwing stone at someone who chooses a less than perfect outcome over a disaster.

Incorrect. It is possible Rand could have forced his hand and had Mike Lee chosen instead. That was a very realistic possibility. However, given the way things went down, Rand still could have voted against Kavanaugh, standing on principle, and Trump's nominee would have gotten seated anyway. There was margin.

[Matt Collins]

And your record of political success that makes you an authority greater than Senator Rand Paul on political strategy is... ?

At this point yes, Rand has fallen in to the access trap which means he essentially is ineffective and holds virtually no power.

[Matt Collins]

In your mind, but nobody cares what you think.

Again, untrue. The hundreds of people who respond positively to my similar comments on Facebook show otherwise.

[timosman]

Again, untrue. The hundreds of people who respond positively to my similar comments on Facebook show otherwise.

Seems like you know which way to go.

[thoughtomator]

At this point yes, Rand has fallen in to the access trap which means he essentially is ineffective and holds virtually no power.

The more straightforward explanation is that a person with so little accomplishment that he deflects the question when asked directly and who comes off as bitter over not having made the cut for Rand's political team simply lacks the humility to assess the situation objectively.

[nobody's_hero]

Communists are statists. You need to lean what a Venn Diagram is.


Incorrect. It is possible Rand could have forced his hand and had Mike Lee chosen instead. That was a very realistic possibility. However, given the way things went down, Rand still could have voted against Kavanaugh, standing on principle, and Trump's nominee would have gotten seated anyway. There was margin.

It's also possible this could have dragged on beyond the elections. Anything could have happened if the Dems retake a majority, and likely nothing good. I don't really care if Princess Murkowski gets drummed out of office by angry republicans for dicking around on close votes, but I'd rather the same not happen to Rand.

At this point yes, Rand has fallen in to the access trap which means he essentially is ineffective and holds virtually no power.

Weren't you stripped of a GOP position for not shaking someone's hand in 2009? How much effectiveness and power did you get from doing that? Not saying you were wrong, but you seem to be holding Rand to an unreasonable standard that you sort of blew yourself when you were in a similar situation.

[Matt Collins]

The more straightforward explanation is that a person with so little accomplishment that he deflects the question when asked directly and who comes off as bitter over not having made the cut for Rand's political team simply lacks the humility to assess the situation objectively.

Uh no. I didn't want to live in DC or KY. And I had worked for Rand during the campaign in 09/10. The 2016 "campaign" was an embarrassing joke. I realized it on day one and wanted no part of it from then forward.

I would however like to see Rand shape up and start fighting hard for principle, which he seems to have abandoned more and more as time moved on.

[Matt Collins]

It's also possible this could have dragged on beyond the elections. Anything could have happened if the Dems retake a majority, and likely nothing good. I don't really care if Princess Murkowski gets drummed out of office by angry republicans for dicking around on close votes, but I'd rather the same not happen to Rand.

Rand has no chance of losing his Senate seat in KY. Remember they keep electing Mitch too. Rand could have gone to Trump immediately and explained to him his objections early on. Or better yet, Trump should have asked him before he went with Kavanaugh.

[dannno]

That doesn't actually explain anything. Kavanaugh's actions are very telling about his support for breaking the 4th Amendment.

I thought they were more telling about his support for textualism.

[dannno]

Matt, it would be one thing if Kavanaugh just came out and said he changed his mind and Rand had to trust him. But he never changed his mind, he has been consistent as to how he approaches these matters. As long as he is consistent, he will be a much better advocate for the 4th amendment than he has been in the past.

Why don't you wait and see what happens before making these type of judgments?

[William Tell]

At this point yes, Rand has fallen in to the access trap which means he essentially is ineffective and holds virtually no power.

Laughable statement considering Rand is the first person in the history of the modern liberty movement to have direct visible policy and personal influence over a sitting president. The strategy you suggest is sexier but to say it's the only one and Rand has no influence is just hilarious.

[thoughtomator]

Uh no. I didn't want to live in DC or KY. And I had worked for Rand during the campaign in 09/10. The 2016 "campaign" was an embarrassing joke. I realized it on day one and wanted no part of it from then forward.

I would however like to see Rand shape up and start fighting hard for principle, which he seems to have abandoned more and more as time moved on.

Just some friendly advice... this axe you're grinding against Rand is convincing exactly zero people while making you toxic to potential future employers in the political consulting field. Who's going to take a chance on someone who looks like he's seeking revenge against a former client?

This is only hurting you personally while achieving nothing. And you're basically suggesting that Rand adopt the same approach, to seek to accumulate unnecessary damage for no gain.

[pcosmar]

Watch out for the Police Drones.

I seem to remember him being OK with that too.

[dannno]

Watch out for the Police Drones.

I seem to remember him being OK with that too.

Only if there is an active crime occurring (a violent crime, theft or otherwise, not a drug crime or something) - as opposed to a suspected crime, or a known non-violent crime.