Im using the phone at work but when I get to a computer I'm pretty sure you're going to have to pick that Mike up again.Originally Posted by PatriotOne
"The Patriarch"
you're going to have to remind me when Ron was a senator..
Trump's team came in before the deadline and under budget. Because of the dems' heel dragging, we are into February with no AG. At some point we need to get everyone confirmed and let them make their own mistakes. I think Spicer and maybe Conway will be out the door before long if they don't watch out. Trump has no problem hiring people. Conway is just too chatty for her own good.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
No, he is not. A good and decent man would not have the voting record that he does.
Of course he will be doing whatever he has to in order to protect the federal government. But remember, he pretty much voted for an supported the previous crooks in office.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
huh?
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Rand has stated before that he gives leeway on confirming cabinet positions. He did the same thing with Obama. So this basically hyper-sensitive outrage. Trump won the presidency, he should have some leeway in selecting his cabinet. That's not to say you can't oppose Sessions but to blame Rand for voting for him is pretty silly. I mean if we were to extrapolate the same logic, Rand/Ron anyone libertarian would never get any of their cabinet appointees through Congress if they won the Presidency.
Last edited by Rudeman; 02-09-2017 at 08:35 PM.
Correct
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Yeah right. I'm sure that whenever we white people break any laws, he'll let it slide. His long voting record of going after all of our freedoms may well be no indication that he will continue to do so as AG.
What do child, drug, and weapon harvesting involve though? And who are some of the people in our own government involved in child, drug, and weapon harvesting?
He could have abstained with zero consequence which would have still allowed him not to have this stain on his voting record.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
I agree.
Rand has blocked some appointments. But he's picking his battles. He's trying to make a difference when it actually makes a difference.
Stain? Please.
Confirm the man. Give him a chance to work. Some of the people who testified before the committee really like the way Sessions works, and thought he brought out their best work. That's hard to overlook.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
I agree.
"The Patriarch"
I hope you didn't break it.
In other words escalating the failed war on drugs, guaranteed to take away more of our liberties."I'm signing three executive actions today designed to restore safety in America," Trump said, adding he was fulfilling another campaign promise. "I am directing DOJ and DHS to take all necessary action to break the backs of criminal cartels that have spread across our nation."
Is violent crime up? And really, does "law enforcement" really need any more protection?Additionally, Trump announced a directive for DOJ to convene a task force against violent crime and to come up with a plan to combat violence against law enforcement officers.
And you're saying this is all good somehow?
"The Patriarch"
He opposed Loretta Lynch's cabinet appointment on the basis of her civil asset forfeiture advocacy.
The epitome of libertarian populism
read more:Democratic Attacks on Sessions Influenced Rand Paul’s Vote
But the Kentucky Republican is concerned about DOJ under Trump
Niels Lesniewski
Feb 9, 2017
Sen. Rand Paul voted to confirm Jeff Sessions as President Donald Trump’s attorney general, but that doesn’t mean the Kentucky Republican with libertarian leanings doesn’t have real concerns about how Sessions will run the Justice Department.
And he thinks it will be more difficult to make progress on a criminal justice overhaul with a Trump-Sessions DOJ.
“In some ways, the Democrats made it much more certain that I would vote for him, by trying to destroy his character. I think to me it’s very upsetting that they didn’t choose to go after him on particular issues like civil asset forfeiture, where they might have been able to persuade someone like me,” Paul said Thursday. “They chose to go after him, and try to destroy a man’s character.”
...
The Kentucky Republican said going forward he has a list of items to discuss with Trump, including government policies toward forfeiture of assets in legal proceedings prior to any sort of conviction.
“I think civil asset forfeiture is a terrible idea until you’ve convicted someone, and I’d like to have that discussion with the president. I’ve had that discussion with Sen. Sessions, and I think some of the things we’ve done particularly to poor people — poor people in our country deal in cash,” Paul said. “I think in order to take someone’s money from them, the government ought to prove it was ill-gotten.”
...
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politic...nfluenced-vote
What is your point? That Rand supports civil asset forfeiture? Clearly he doesn't (as the article above mentions). Rand has already voted against Pompeo (at the time he was the only Republican to vote against a Trump cabinet appointee), he has publicly denied potential AG picks and the other day he came out against Abrams.
Maybe just maybe he had other reasons to support Sessions? Everything isn't a purely black or white issue. It's weird that libertarians love to $#@! on each other over impurities instead of welcoming those who lean libertarian. It constantly has to be a pissing match over purity.
Don't be a smartass. We all know he was in the house. I'm simply stating as a matter of principle.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
As a result of Rand voting to confirm Sessions as AG, Sessions will now be more willing to listen to Rand when he voices his concerns about protecting civil liberties. Had Rand voted against Sessions, then Sessions would simply disregard anything Rand says in the future. But of course libertarians don't believe in being practical and will never consider those kinds of practical implications.
That doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is his adherence to the Constitution, and he has failed miserably at that as a Senator.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
His vote wouldn't have made a difference here, which is all the more reason to abstain or vote no.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
HA HA HA HA HA!
What world are you living in, because it isn't the real one
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
And Giuliani or Christie would be better when it comes to upholding the Constitution? Those were the alternatives had Sessions been blocked.
Last edited by Brett85; 02-10-2017 at 11:49 AM.
I'm the one living in the real world. You're the one who doesn't believe in being practical. You think that Rand somehow could get
away with joining the Democrats and rewarding their despicable race baiting. Rand would've been seen as the enemy by the entire right wing of the Republican Party if he had voted against Sessions. Rand is a Republican Senator. If he were to be completely independent he would have to run for office as an independent or as a Libertarian.
Rand wasn't really in a position to block Sessions, unless Cruz and Lee joined in which would be doubtful.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Then what would Rand voting against Sessions have actually accomplished? All it would've done is cause the entire right wing of the Republican Party to hate him, and make him lose influence with his fellow Republican Senators, making it harder for him to get their support on things like his Obamacare replacement plan.
Sessions is terrible (and not because of the racial nonsense), but I can see why Rand would do this.
He couldn't have changed the outcome here (unlike with Abrams, e.g.), so the only issue was PR.
And, PR-wise, opposing Sessions would have been counterproductive IMO.
Rand is getting lots of kudos from the **********s for opposing Abrams (whom they also dislike).
As he got kudos for opposing Krispy, 'Stache, and The Ghoul.
But if Rand opposes every terrible Trump nomination, esp. ones that the **********s like, he's just going to isolated himself.
Trump must further discredit himself with his base before they'll be receptive to more vigorous opposition.
P.S. Wow, the word combining Trump and chimpanzee has been banned?
Let's see if Cuck or Losertarian has been banned...
P.P.S. Nope...
How 'bout that...
Last edited by MallsRGood; 02-10-2017 at 12:40 PM.
Maybe. I'm not sure what I would have done in his shoes. But the opposite case can be made. There would be a definite political cost for voting no or abstaining, while still accomplishing nothing.
He could have abstained from the vote without any consequence.
Sticking to principle means sticking to principle regardless of the political circumstances. Otherwise it isn't being principled.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
There wouldn't have been a cost for abstaining or being absent during that particular vote.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
The guiding principle for a libertarian should be "always do what most advances the libertarian cause,"
not "always publicly oppose unlibertarian things [even if doing so is counterproductive to the libertarian cause]."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us