Rand Paul

Rand Paul "Different Kind of Republican" When it Comes to Sharing Data with GOP

Also: Paul's SuperPAC lags, and quotes Khamenei out of context to Kerry to make Iran nuke deal sound worse.

|

Rand Paul is showing how much he's bucking Republican Party powers that be in a non-ideological way this week, as Bloomberg News reports:

Several presidential candidates are likely to sign contracts allowing them to simultaneously receive voter profiles from both the Republican National Committee and i360, a rival data warehouse managed by the political network associated with Koch Industries. Paul, however, seems to be following a different path—one that will allow him to maintain full control of any data collected by his campaign or affiliated super-PAC and set up a distinct power base beyond 2016 entirely independent of the Republican Party.

Paul is the only one of the party's candidates trying to assemble a full-fledged presidential campaign who has refused to sign a so-called data agreement with the RNC. This is a standard arrangement in both parties, designed to permit candidates to benefit from one of few durable resources in American politics: a national party's voter database. In exchange for access to it, candidates pledge that after the election they will enrich the database by returning intelligence gathered on the electorate through their interactions with individual voters.

The article gets into some nitty-gritty about the rivalry between the GOP data machine and the Kochs:

Although both databases are assembled atop publicly available voter-registration records, they offer differing strengths. The RNC has maintained its voter file for a quarter-century, constantly replenishing it with information about voter behavior and attitudes on candidates and issues collected through campaign canvasses and phone banks. Want to know which Iowa voters told McCain-Palin volunteers that bailouts were their greatest concern? There's only one place to find it.

The much-newer i360 has little of that historical data, but sustained by the Kochs' seemingly limitless funds, boasts of having acquired a wide range of consumer profiles and a growing team of data scientists developing topical predictive models from them. Looking for probable 2016 caucus-goers who are likely to think the Islamic State is a greater concern than civil liberties? You should expect to see it offered from i360 rather than the RNC.

Why might Paul want to risk alienating Party powers-that-be about this?

Paul has vowed to bring new supporters into the Republican primary process, including young voters unlikely to have been contacted much by previous Republican candidates. If Paul succeeds in doing so, the granular intelligence his campaign assembles about that coalition—knowledge of individual issue preferences, and contact information like cell-phone numbers—will become a unique asset in American politics and one he will be happy not to have to return to the RNC.  

Paul's own campaign could theoretically acquire any data collected by the super-PAC at any point, either through purchase or by trading something of comparable value'….

Complete control over all the data his campaign collects could make Paul a power broker in future party primaries, and sustain a career as a perpetual candidate—with a constant implied threat that he could do it either inside the party or outside of it….When asked to explain Rand Paul's resistance to signing a data agreement with the RNC, spokesman Sergio Gor responded by e-mail, "We'll pass on this story."  

The "outside of it" part seems a stretch to start drama where there isn't any. Anything is possible, but my background understanding of Paul family world would lead me to say the third party hope/fear is very unlikely, and I'd be surprised if he'd even use the explicit or implicit threat of it in a deliberate strategic way.

But Pauls do like to have their own outside-Party base of donors and potential donors to help fund any one of a variety of organizations, crusades, events, or projects that aren't specifically about running for office. I suspect this is way more about that than it is about third party runs, or threats of same.

In other Rand Paul news:

• He very disappointingly in a hearing grilling Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday quotes a statement from Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei grossly out of context in order to buttress an argument that the Iranian nuke deal is questionable and dangerous. Bad form. Paul quoted Khamenei as saying "The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it's not true."

Whew, scary, huh? Paul neglected to quote the next sentence, in which Khameini clarified: "We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks."

Paul did begin with a pro forma acknowledgement that negotiations are good and all that, at least compared to war, but following that up with frankly propagandistic anti-Iranian misquoting blunts the value of that. See my July Reason feature on Paul's often inscrutable foreign policy.

• He's introducing legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and to arm our military on their bases. Business Insider notes a pattern of legislating over "stories of the week," not a bad strategy for a presidential candidate seeking earned media that might win over specific issue voters.

•  Paul's prime SuperPac, America's Liberty, with only two seven-figure donors (Jeff Yass of Susquehanna Partners and George Macricostas, founder of data center company RagingWire), is underperforming every other GOP candidates', even Carly Fiorina and Bobby Jindal.

Advertisement

NEXT: D.C. Circuit revives constitutional challenge to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When will Paul apologize for the climate of hate that his vocal distrust of government has created, which directly inspired and enabled the Louisiana shooter?

    1. I too have a vocal distrust and contempt of government – am I responsible for a “climate of hate” that “directly inspired and enabled the Louisiana shooter”? A man for whom I have never met, never spoken to, and wouldn’t know him from Adam?

      In fact, the majority of Reasonoids have a vocal distrust and contempt for government. So, are all of us responsible for the actions of someone none of us know? Do we owe an apology for “enabling” a murderer too?

      1. Adam Lanza? He’s kinda funny lookin’.

        1. Adam Lambert

      2. In fact, the majority of Reasonoids have a vocal distrust and contempt for government. So, are all of us responsible for the actions of someone none of us know? Do we owe an apology for “enabling” a murderer too?

        Yes, all of you do.

        1. The probability of mass mea culpas from the Reasonoid crowd is far less likely than a jackass being pushed down a wood chipper.

          Just sayin’

          1. Not that I advocate pushing a jackass down a wood chipper, you understand. It gums up the gears.

            It was a metaphor.

  2. And there you have it. Money. He isn’t getting any. The chickens come home to roost… Speech equals money, exactly what will doom the libertarian message for years. You supported it, now live with it.

    1. The libertarian message was flourishing when speech didn’t equal money?

      1. Of course. Obama pretended to give a shit about civil liberties. Then Citizens United happened, and he stopped. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

        1. Yikes! At least he stopped pretending.

        2. Obama isn’t a libertarian, so don’t expect him to carry your water for you. Y’all elected Paul to do that, and without money, he has no chance. It’s over.

          1. So, you’re saying that *without* Citizens United, Paul would be able to carry water for us?

            1. He would have had a much better chance. You should understand, Reps and Dems will never want for money. Libertarians need it. And the Kosh’s aren’t it…they are Reps more than they are libertarians.

              1. *kochs

              2. How would the libertarians have *gotten* it?

                1. I think I can say this for Jack and Ace’s point: Paul’s father was rather good at raising decent money from small donors in innovative ways, and I think it would be safe to say he himself could replicate this, but that gets swamped by the Walker and Bush type Super-Pacs heavily funded by big donors like Adelson and the Kochs.

                  I’ve never been able to embrace this view myself because it strikes me as plainly a violation of the NAP (not to mention the 1st), but if so many libertarians can take the view that we have to restrict liberty in the case of immigration because it will mean politically an undermining of overall liberty down the road then one could certainly argue reasonably that restricting campaign finance spending could very well cut back on some of the rent seeking we abhor as well as opening up chances for non-mainstream candidates to better challenge the status quo. We don’t see that because, of course, most of the ostensible libertarians willing to trade liberty in the short term for hypothetical long term gains in the immigration area are nearly certainly just conservatives flirting with or posing as libertarian.

                  1. Paul’s father was rather good at raising decent money from small donors in innovative ways

                    No way. Rather he had devout supporters who were good at organizing fundraising drives independent of the campaign.

                    He was unable to translate the money into any kind of success at the polls, for several reasons, but the most relevant to Rand’s campaign is that the stubborn adherence to ideology that made him a hero to his supporters, utterly pissed off ordinary Republican voters. Contrary to Jack Ace above, money does not imply votes.

                    1. “He was unable to translate the money into any kind of success at the polls”

                      Wha-? Significantly outspent, he came in third in the delegate count.

                    2. Close, but not quite right.

                      Paul’s father was rather good at raising decent money even before 2008.

                      However, in 2008, his enthusiastic supporters were extraordinarily good at independently developing novel fundraising campaigns. It would be almost impossible for Rand to replicate that, even if he scored 99.9% on the Ron Paul libertarian purity test. It was one of those spontaneous order type of things.

                  2. That’s certainly a possible defense for a reversal of CU – but that’s not J&A’s thesis.

                    He’s saying that the CU decision is *causing* the decline in funding for libertarian candidates – when all CU did was uphold the pre-existing ability of people to donate as they see fit.

                    That Libertarian funding was on the rise *before* CU and is in a decline *post-CU* does not mean that CU has anything to do with it.

                    Something else changed at the same time – from Ron Paul (being an explicitly (L)ibertarian candidate able to excite the (L)ibertarian base) to Rand Paul being a *Republican* candidate with (l)ibertarian leanings.

                    Meaning that the junior Paul is fighting for funding from mainstream R’s while also not being able to gin up as much ‘hope’ from the hardcore L’s.

                    Which is a hell of a better explanation for a falloff in funding for libertarian cadidates than ‘herp-derp, the SC has explicitly said you can keep doing what you’ve been doing all along’.

                    1. “That Libertarian funding was on the rise *before* CU and is in a decline *post-CU* does not mean that CU has anything to do with it.”

                      Is there even evidence of this, though? Jackand has sadly given me nothing to work with besides his word.

                    2. Don’t know – and its not really relevant to shooting down his claims. I’ll simply stipulate to this ‘fact’ and move on.

                    3. “when all CU did was uphold the pre-existing ability of people to donate as they see fit.”

                      That’s not true is it? Super-pac spending has increased rather significantly following and as a result of the decision, right?

                    4. SuperPAC spending may have greatly increased – because of newfound clarity in existing law.

                      But the reason CU was litigated in the first place is because the government tried to put restrictions on spending by donors – restrictions that did not exist previously.

                      CU said those restrictions were unconstitutional and swept them away.

                    5. But CU also held some things that were, I think, not assumed to be true for most in the game until t then: namely that corporate speech was protected and that corruption and its appearance would no longer be considered a compelling interest, right?

                    6. Correct. In that these things were not commonly held by the *laity* because the courts had not explicitly ruled on them.

                      There was ambiguity in how the *courts* would interpret this stuff.

                      CU ended that ambiguity – but it did not *change* the prior existing legal regime, only clarified how money is handled vis a vis speech.

                      People responded to that new-found clarity by moving forward with donations.

                      Regulatory uncertainty is generally *worse* than bad regulation itself.

                    7. OK, so I guess my statement is that by clarifying the regulatory uncertainty it opened up quite a bit of activity.

                2. By converting to the statist religion, you infidel. Good Government = Good God.

                3. “Government so loved the world, that It sent its only begotten ass, Michael Hihn. That whosoever believeth in It shall forever perish and have Eternal Statism”. The Gospel according to Lib, Chapter 1 Verse I

                  1. Lay off Hihn. He has been leading the Libertarian movement for decades. Decades. Just look where that has gotten us!

                    1. More government? Is this a trick question? Less liberty, more government is my answer.

                  2. “Government so loved the world, that It sent its only begotten ass, Michael Hihn. That whosoever believeth in It shall forever perish and have Eternal Statism”. The Gospel according to Lib, Chapter 1 Verse I

                    I larfed.

      2. It was growing. And now it will forever be relegated to the back pages because…money. If there is one candidate who needs an equal playing field in messaging, it’s Paul. Alas.

        1. Can I see a chart showing libertarian message growth over the last 20 years?

          1. No. But deny for me Ron Paul’s growth, as well as Rand getting elected. You don’t think it was growing? You didn’t pay attention.

            1. “No. But deny for me Ron Paul’s growth, as well as Rand getting elected. You don’t think it was growing? You didn’t pay attention.”

              Ron grew pretty enormously even after 2010. And Rand was elected to senate.

        2. How would Citizens United have ‘equaled’ the playing field.

          All it would have down is eliminated competition for union and government sponsored NGO’s, allowing them to get *their* messages out without worrying that icky ‘private’ interests would be able to interfere.

          1. Money is politics today. And Rand, being behind and no establishment, can’t afford to have minimalessaging compared to Bush. It’s over. His only chance is the debates, and if he doesn’t hit a home run, forget it. And even then…

            1. Money was politics *yesterday* also.

              Citizens United didn’t change that.

              So why are you predicting a sudden downturn in libertarian funding in its aftermath.

              1. All CU did was *uphold the pre-existing status quo*.

              2. I think he’s predicting libertarian funding becoming overwhelmed by non-libertarian funding. With no evidence to support it.

              3. Yes, Government loves me,
                Yes, Government loves me,
                Yes, Government loves me
                The Ass Hihn tells me so

                1. *clasps hands in prayer and bows toward W4J*

                  I am sure I am going to answer for that…

                  1. Oh, yes indeedy – you’re his “target audience” now . . .

            2. So the way to get out a libertarian message is to have non-libertarian messages suppressed by the government?

              I think you are missing some thing here.

        3. So no getting his word out and doing God’s work on some of the meanest streets in Lowell, MA?

          1. “meanest streets in Lowell, MA”

            That makes me laugh.

            Swiss, hourly updates!. I was worried you had drowned in a bottle of claret.

            1. I just checked the link. The wife and kids are gone, and it sounds like he’s… complaining?

              1. Actually, I think he’s enjoying it. We’ll see how the night goes. Hourly updates!

                1. I actually sympathize a little bit. I planned our summer vacation months ago, and now my wife finds out she’s going to trial on some overlapping dates. So now, I’ll be in Hawaii alone with 2 of the kids for a few days.

                  I’m researching the most dangerous activities on Oahu right now.

                  1. Good luck.

                    Being single and having no kids I don’t have these problems. I have other problems.

            2. I would die of steak poisoning if I were in that situation. 3 meals a day…

              1. Is that possible? Steak poisoning? If so, I’m not sure life is worth living.

                1. You have to try really hard. Like, really hard. I have 7 lbs of Costco Prime Filet Mignon on the cutting board right now, and I’m going to walk away tomorrow morning without a scratch.

                  1. That sounds delicious.

                    1. Wait til I tell you about the bacon. Whoops, just did.

                    2. Duck bacon? I had duck bacon on a burger in Vegas last May. Excellent. My sister tells me Wegman’s carries duck bacon now. Unfortunately there are no Wegman’s in southern NH. The closest is in eastern Massachusetts.

                    3. Just regular black forest. Filets are very tender, but lacking in the fat department.

                      I do have a tub of duck fat, but that’s going on the mushrooms.

                    4. Incidentally, my wife doesn’t eat pork. Duck is the closest I can get.

                    5. Well, that’s more pork for everyone else.

                    6. “I do have a tub of duck fat, but that’s going on the mushrooms.”

                      Here’s what I’m ‘ruining’ for Playa that makes him so, so, obsessively upset.

                      Sheesh.

                    7. Because truly this is what Reason intended for its comments board: discussions of duck fat. You guys with your political discussions, especially the disagreeing types, you’re totally ruining our community fun time!

                    8. “I don’t know how to interact with other human beings, and it really bothers me.”

                    9. If Reason didn’t intend for talk about duck fat, that’s entirely their mistake. At least it was surprising, unlike the usual political discussions that eternally recure.

            3. Now getting drunk…claret long gone….shiraz bottle now follows…TF2 didn’t satisfy…now back at HyR. Must resist urge to mock Bo and Stubby Joe the Urban Planner….

              1. Miss wife and kids…but trying to get head together beofre donating kidney….freakin’ insurance company is jacking my recipient around…gah!

                1. Holy Shit! Are you actually doing that soon???

                  1. Also, will the recipient get drunk off of your kidney?

                2. .but trying to get head together beofre donating kidney….freakin’ insurance company is jacking my recipient around

                  Good luck! Sorry to hear about the insurance company.

                  1. Trying for 5 August…f’ing Obamacare….

                    One last thing I can do to serve …and not play rugby anymore 🙁

                    1. Can’t you get some sort of kidney shield to protect the remaining one? Maybe with spikes on it?

                      Fist only has one kidney, and he seems to do OK, other than sitting at his computer, staring at his watch, and waiting for the links.

                    2. No more rugby…not even a chance at coming back to soldiering.

                      “No greater love hath….”

                      I WILL NOT see my buddy go down because of polytheistic kidney disease.

                      F that!

                    3. Fist is What He Is…

                      /none shall quesion

                    4. STILL STANDING. My defect makes my other organs’ senses heightened.

        4. Considering the fact that Libertarian ideals, causes and campaigns are currently being funded, directly or not, by two of the wealthiest men on the planet suggests that it will not, in fact,be regulated fo the back pages. The influx of Libertarians being given voice on national television, radio and internet media has grown exponentially over the last decade. Granted, we still have a lot of work to do, but we have begun to excerpt influence in the Republican party, however small. The major point of contention will be if we can make enough inroads before the nation collapes under its own bureaucratic weight.

          1. Exert, fuck me running.

            1. May I defer from intercoursing you whilst jogging?

      3. The more important question is how this situation was any different before Citizens United. Paul would somehow have more visibility without super PACs?

        Oh, Agammamon already covered this. Bravo, Agammamon!

    2. Hitting the sauce early today, joe? Well, I guess it is Friday. Get drunk and say something stupid! Just like always!

      1. I’ll try. But it’ll probably end up being brilliant.

    3. “Speech equals money, exactly what will doom the libertarian message for years. You supported it, now live with it.”

      So you’re accusing of us of being principled even when it is not to our advantage?

      You got me!

      1. “principled”

        *snorts shiraz out left nostril*

        OCH!

  3. Khameini clarified: “We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”

    If you believe that this supposed fatwa (a) exists and (b) is actually enough to prevent Iran from pursuing nukes, then why are we bothering making a deal with Iran in the first place? Why are we handing them $150B with which to finance more conventional terrorism, which no fatwa forbids?

    Pretty much every argument the Iran deal’s supporters advance, when carried to its logical conclusion, implies that the deal was totally unnecessary.

    1. I think Brian’s bitch is that Paul made the Khomeini’s statement sound like he was saying that Iran was going to get the bomb with or without the deal, when he was actually saying that Iran was not going to get the bomb either way. Whether you believe him or not doesn’t change Paul’s disingenuous use of the quote.

    2. “Pretty much every argument the Iran deal’s supporters advance, when carried to its logical conclusion, implies that the deal was totally unnecessary.”

      I think quite the opposite. The opponents of the deal were yelling before it that sanctions weren’t working, not they say ‘we must not lift sanctions!!!’ They say ‘they will be able to evade the deal because of mobile, easy to hide nukes’ and then argue that we should just take out their nukes (the easy to hide ones!). Etc.,

      These people want war with Iran, plain and simple.

      1. Pffft….what know you of war – I think this is a shite deal and will guarantee a war in future…and I know it s cost and wouldn’t wish it on anyone, having seen it in its pitiless black eyes. The deal can suck and people can hate it without “wanting war” you mendacious twat.

        *resumes finishing shiraz*

  4. So, is Trump played out now, or has the protest from the comment section worked?

    1. Trump Trumpity Trump Trump.

      Trump Trump.

      1. “I’m going to Trump – you up”

        Herr Von Woodchipper

    2. Commentariat: Why is everyone talking about her, sure, she’s been at my house some this week, but it’s not like I asked her to marry me!

      1. Huh? Trump is a joke. Watch, he’ll drop out before he has to do the full financial disclosures.

        1. They’re all jokes who you could argue won’t pan out, but this one is leading the polls right now. The GOP-leaners here would love to hand-wave him away because he’s harder to defend than most of their other deviations from Reason’s views, but you can’t argue the fellow isn’t pulling some support from quite a few out there. If he fizzles out in support then by all means it would be bizarre to write much about him. Until then, why not?

          1. He’s 2 points ahead of Walker now, who gets much less coverage. He’s only in the lead because there are like 20 candidates. He easily has the highest disapproval ratings of anybody in the GOP field, which is actually more important at this point.

            1. Walker may get ‘much less coverage’ but he’s well funded, spending quite a bit and working hard on the ground. Trump’s appeal, which is topping Walker, has come with little of that.

              Like I said, why all this ‘well, it says he’s popular, but this and this and that’ as an excuse not to cover him? Let’s say this: when his appeal has clearly become insignificant, not as prognosticated, then let’s ignore the buffoon.

              1. Walker may get ‘much less coverage’ but he’s well funded, spending quite a bit and working hard on the ground.

                Goalposts away!

                1. Er, my goalposts are the same-he’s leading the polls. You’re the one that attempted to move them (‘yeah, but he’s not that much ahead and he’s got all this extra coverage!!!’).

                  1. Er, my goalposts are the same-he’s leading the polls.

                    No. You then switched to considering the amount campaign spending. Coverage isn’t allocated a first-past-the-post manner.

                    1. You didn’t switch first?

                      Me: Polls!

                      You: But Coverage!!!!

            2. Sorry, Christie has higher disapprovals. But everybody else is lower.

              1. “Christie has higher disapprovals.”

                Ah, there is some justice to the universe.

                1. Have you considered drowing yourself in a Christie fatfold? If I were you, I’d mull it over….

                  /just sayin’

                  1. DAMMIT! Usually I am a happy/mellow drunk.

                    I blame BOOOOSH, and Bo.

          2. Why exactly are constant refutations of Trump necessary on THIS site? They aren’t. And you seem to think polls at this stage mean anything, and it’s not just a large number of Republicans who loathe the mainstream media and people screwing with pollsters. There are a strong number of Republicans who buy into the anti-immigrant rhetoric, but very few primary voters would ever pull the trigger for him.

            Not to mention the whole wall-to-wall Trump coverage flies in the face of wanting to undermine his message. Not just here, but everywhere. The media loves the Trump story just like you do, Bo. The mainstream press is looking for cheap and easy stories that make Republicans look stupid and, by default, team blue and Hillary look good.

            1. “Why exactly are constant refutations of Trump necessary on THIS site? ”

              Because he says things directly contrary to libertarian values, especially Reason’s rather consistent take on them?

              “The mainstream press is looking for cheap and easy stories that make Republicans look stupid and, by default, team blue and Hillary look good.”

              I’m glad you and I agree on how all this is seen. The interesting thing is how upset that makes you. Why do you care whether the Republicans look stupid, hmmm?

              1. Because he says things directly contrary to libertarian values, especially Reason’s rather consistent take on them?

                And it would have taken a single article to refute them. Not the wall-to-wall coverage we got. It’s not a matter of ignoring him, but always about extreme saturation.

                I’m glad you and I agree on how all this is seen. The interesting thing is how upset that makes you. Why do you care whether the Republicans look stupid, hmmm?

                1. I don’t need to be pro-Republican to recognize that a media pathetically and totally in the tank for team blue is a bad thing for everyone – including libertarians.
                2. The only guy I’d vote for happens to be a Republican. So, forgive me if I don’t enjoy the media sucking all the air out of the one campaign I care about.
                3. Pointing out the media’s game does not mean I care whether Republicans, in general, ‘look stupid.’

                If I wanted to read hysteric article after article about Trump, I’d go to Salon. That’s not what I come HERE for.

                1. The problem for you is Trump’s positions that seem behind his appeal offend Reason’s long held values as much as Salon’s (I know, I know, that kills you, those SJWS!!!!!). So the guy is A. at the top of the polls of one of the Big Two B. a celebrity (hey, Reason has to appeal to the public too) and C. is saying things in stark contradiction with what Reason believes.

                  And get this: they cover it. Oh noes the conspiracy!!!!!

                  I think we have all we need to explain you’re handwaving on this.

                  The mainstream press is looking for cheap and easy stories that make Republicans look stupid and, by default
                  +
                  The only guy I’d vote for happens to be a Republican.

                  As a Paul supporter to an ostensible one, let me ask you, how in the world is Paul diminished by coverage attacking the guy who currently leads him in the contest???

                  1. Reason’s long held values as much as Salon’s

                    Just need to point out that ‘Salon’ and ‘values’ are inherently contradictory.

                    /I know-pedant

                  2. Salon has no values. Reason is sending its time tilting at windmills.

                    It’s also not handwaving. You’ve yet to explain why Reason actually has to write so much on the matter. There in lies the rub. It’s not that Reason discusses him. You continuously ignore this point. Reason appeals to a small audience of libertarians, and avoids click bait in the first place.

                    The better question is why you WANT Reason to cover Trump so much.

                    As a Paul supporter to an ostensible one, let me ask you, how in the world is Paul diminished by coverage attacking the guy who currently leads him in the contest???

                    Your average Republican primary voter doesn’t give a shit who the media hates. The Trump coverage is driving up his poll numbers, and there’s more behind that than the Republicans hate brown people narrative you want to push.

                    1. “You’ve yet to explain why Reason actually has to write so much on the matter.”

                      So the guy is A. at the top of the polls of one of the Big Two B. a celebrity (hey, Reason has to appeal to the public too) and C. is saying things in stark contradiction with what Reason believes.

                    2. Trump is getting attention because people pay attention to stories about him. When people stop caring, his media coverage will decline significantly. I’m sure the MSM loves covering him from a political POV, but any media business manager would be dumb to not cover him. That’s why there’s all these stories. And Trump leading the polls is making the GOP look worse than any number of media stories would if he was just getting 3% of the vote instead of 20-25%.

        2. Zeb, you just got Bo’d.

            1. Words mean things.

              “Obsession” would be me chasing you after you left. I just want you to leave, and I’m not alone there.

              Is that so hard for you to understand?

              1. Yes, you chasing me around has a context that totally makes it less weird! Lol.

                1. You find it “weird” and humorous that people absolutely can’t stand you? Good luck with that.

                  1. Your defense of your stalking is so pathetic I can only repost my original response to you.

                    Yes, you chasing me around has a context that totally makes it less weird! Lol.

                    1. Stalking?! You strange little person….flee, whilst you can. There, “stalking” solv-ed

                      /inspector Cleasueau

                  2. Bo is hard to place..I am sure if sober, I could place the sort of ….thing it is….Young Captain that hasn’t learned ass from elbow whilst in combat? Lawyer that hasn’t had head/ass handed to it by judge?

                    Reality is a harsh mistress/master….I almost can see the emotional trainwreck when it hits Bo….

                    1. Captain? You’re far too generous. He’s in Private Manning territory.

                    2. My old Field Grade experience getting involved…

                    3. Well here we are again
                      It’s always such a pleasure
                      Remember when you made that one good point?
                      Oh how we laughed and laughed
                      Except we were not laughing
                      Under the circumstances we’ve been shockingly nice

                      You want your safe, prog world? Take it
                      That’s what we’re counting on
                      We used to want you dead
                      But now we only want you gone

    3. Al hamdu’ lillah! I shall haet of the hairpieced one no more!

      /insh’allah!

  5. “Paul, however, seems to be following a different path?one that will allow him to maintain full control of any data collected by his campaign or affiliated super-PAC and set up a distinct power base beyond 2016 entirely independent of the Republican Party.”

    Important point.

    Rand Paul is in it for the long haul.

    It’s not about just one election cycle. If he doesn’t win the nomination this round, I hope he looks at running for Governor. I know the Senate job is a steady gig, but people take governors more seriously.

    Unless you’re running on the LP ticket, I guess.

    1. Ken, did you notice Saudi Arabia seems to have backed the Iran deal?

      1. You got a link?

        1. I see this headline at the New York Times:

          “Saudi Arabia Approves of Iran Nuclear Deal, U.S. Defense Chief Says”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07…..rabia.html

          And then when I read the story I don’t see anything to support the first part of that headline.

          I see indications that the Saudis aren’t condemning the deal publicly.

          But that doesn’t mean “Saudi Arabia approves of the Iran Nuclear Deal”.

          At all.

          1. “Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister said Thursday the Iran nuclear deal appears to have the provisions needed to curtail Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon in what were the most favorable remarks yet from the kingdom on the recent agreement.”

            http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-fm…..36046.html

            1. And that’s the best thing he’s ever said about it?

              That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.

              Incidentally, I once said that ObamaCare appears to have the ability to increase the Medicaid rolls.

              I promise you that is not intended as an endorsement of ObamaCare.

            2. LOL. One very tepid sentence about how they have to study the details of the deal, during the visit from SecDaft Carter.

              I’ll admit that they might like it because it gives them carte blanche to get their own nukes.

              1. Bo is cheering as hard as it can. HOPE!

          2. Incidentally, the Obama Administration has been known to say a lot of things that aren’t true–on all sorts of different issues.

            Their lying typically gets worse when they’re trying to get Congress’ support on something.

            1. Saudi Arabia’s FM is in the Obama administration now?

              1. Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.

                Actually, what I said was the Obama Administration seems to have a problem with truthiness when they’re trying to get something passed by Congress.

                Here’s what the NYT wrote:

                King Salman was not overheard making any promises, but he did say he was sorry he had not attended the summit meeting Mr. Obama hosted at Camp David in May, explaining that “during that time there was a difficult situation in Yemen,” a reference to the Saudi bombing campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi insurgents next door.

                Saudi officials in the meeting on Wednesday did say they wanted to be sure that the United States would reimpose sanctions under the nuclear accord’s “snapback” provisions if Iran were deemed to be violating it.

                Defense officials said they welcomed the Saudi restraint about publicly criticizing the Iran nuclear deal, in sharp contrast to the reaction from officials in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a “historic mistake.”

                One possible reason for the restraint, foreign policy experts suggested, is that King Salman, who assumed the throne in January, is widely viewed as more diplomatic than his brother and predecessor, King Abdullah, who, according to leaked diplomatic cables, famously told American officials that they should “cut the head of the snake,” referring to Iran and its nuclear program.

                —-Link above.

                1. Again, a lack of public condemnation is not an endorsement of the deal.

                  The article is about why the Saudis have restrained themselves from saying what they really think!

                  Anybody that goes around telling people that Saudi Arabia approves of taking off the sanctions and giving Iran the ability to enrich its own uranium is making a fool of themselves.

                  Use your critical thinking skills! You can’t believe everything you read on Yahoo or the NYT, and you certainly can’t believe what you read just because they said what you wanted to hear.

                  1. “Anybody that goes around telling people that Saudi Arabia approves of taking off the sanctions and giving Iran the ability to enrich its own uranium is making a fool of themselves.”

                    This is like when almost 70% of the American people believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11–six months after we invaded Iraq, almost 70% of the American people still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11.

                    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..iraq_x.htm

                    Look at the date on that article.

                    Don’t be made a fool of.

                    Some people will believe anything.

                    1. Ken, take a listen.
                      http://www.npr.org/2015/07/24/…..clear-deal

                    2. I don’t have time to listen to NPR.

                      But the title at your link to NPR reads, “Saudi Arabia Softens Opposition To Iran Nuclear Deal”

                      Nothing you’re quoting says what you say it says.

                    3. “I don’t have time to listen to NPR.”

                      When you stop up your ears, you never hear anything contrary!

                  2. “You can’t believe everything you read on Yahoo or the NYT”

                    Okay, here we go.

                    The other day you said “no in the area supports the deal.”

                    I post sources about the Saudi FM’s favorable remarks, and you ‘you can’t believe everything you read at those sources!!!!’

                    1. “I post sources about the Saudi FM’s favorable remarks, and you ‘you can’t believe everything you read at those sources!!!!'”

                      You’re the one acting like a climate change denier, Bo.

                      Your sources don’t say what you say they say.

                      And even if they said what you’re saying–that Saudi Arabia wants Iran to both have sanctions lifted and the freedom to enrich their own uranium?

                      Then they’re a joke.

                      It’s more like a fantasy on your part. What am I supposed to believe? A story that doesn’t say what you say it says–or good sense, knowledge, and critical thinking?

                      Explain this: In your mind, why does Saudi Arabia want Iran to enrich its own uranium? What’s in it for Saudi Arabia–other than a security threat to their very existence?

                    2. “And even if they said what you’re saying–that Saudi Arabia wants Iran to both have sanctions lifted and the freedom to enrich their own uranium?”

                      You need to get together with the guy who said this:

                      “I’ll admit that they might like it because it gives them carte blanche to get their own nukes.”

                      And at least get your talking points straight!

                      On a more serious note, listen to the NPR story I provided supra, it notes what Saudi thinks it’s getting from the deal.

                    3. And at least get your talking points straight!

                      I can see why you’d go ad hominem–the shit you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.

                      Even if I were getting my instructions directly from the ghost of Breitbart, the shit you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.

                      Meanwhile, you’re the one running around repeating what you want to hear from various leftist news cites–I say repeating what you want to hear because none of the sites you’ve linked say what you say they’re saying.

                      They wouldn’t embarrass themselves like that!

                    4. Yes, all my links are full of support for your premise that no one in the area supports the deal! Especially when you stop up your ears to them.

                    5. “Yes, all my links are full of support for your premise that no one in the area supports the deal!

                      If your contention is still that Saudi Arabia support the lifting of sanctions against Iran and Iran being free to enrich its own uranium, then you’re going full retard.

                      Never go full retard.

                      Do you know how drunk I’d have to be think that Saudi Arabia wants Iran to enrich its own uranium?

                      That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard since the idea that the Iraqi people wanted to be be bombed, invaded, and occupied.

                      I know creationists who are smarter than this…

                      Saudi Arabia wants Iran to enrich its own uranium?!

                      Bo, you drank the kool aid, dude!

                  3. You just want war with Iran, Ken. You are just a right leaning knuckle dragger. Admit it!

                    That’s about the extent of Bo’s argument here. The Obama administration is probably throwing bribes around to the Saudis behind closed doors to get them to mute their (public) criticism, but I’m supposed to take that lukewarm statement as an endorsement.

                    I’m also supposed to believe that America is going to be able to snap sanctions back into place to punish Iran with global cooperation after this deal…They are called snap-back, after all!

                    1. I’m guessing you’re ignorant of a previous discussion Ken and I had where one of his points was ‘no one in the area supports the deal!’

                      “The Obama administration is probably throwing bribes around to the Saudis behind closed doors”

                      And we enter the grand land of UnFalsifiable!

                    2. I had the same discussion with you. And it’s true. That comment from one representative of the Saudi state doesn’t refute their reaction throughout the entire process.

                    3. “one representative of the Saudi state”

                      He’s the foreign minister. Whu?

                    4. Considering they’re going to grant early release to a convicted Israeli spy to try to smooth things over with Bibi, it’s not at all implausible. We’re not out to prove a scientific theory here.

                    5. I don’t remember saying that in those terms.

                      I’m sure Syria supports the deal!

                      But Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are all going to want their own nuclear weapons, that’s for sure.

                2. So the King has said nothing, but his FM has “said Thursday the Iran nuclear deal appears to have the provisions needed to curtail Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon in what were the most favorable remarks yet from the kingdom on the recent agreement.”

                  What is this supposed to show again?

                  1. ObamaCare appears to have the provisions needed to increase Medicaid rolls.

                    Do you think that’s an endorsement of ObamaCare?

                    Because it isn’t.

                    If someone says that Caitlyn Jenner appears to have been born a woman, is that an endorsement of her…decision?

                    I don’t think so.

                    “The Iran nuclear deal appears to have the provisions needed to curtail Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon”

                    It’s just a statement of fact. I say the same thing.

                    And then I condemn the deal because that appearance is an illusion. It’s horseshit.

                    If I tell you that Obama appears to be competent? That is not an endorsement. …it means I’m about to tell you that he’s actually an incompetent jackass. If the nicest thing the King can say about the deal is a statement of fact about appearances? Then that’s some seriously faint praise.

                    In the meantime, Saudi Arabia was bombing pro-Iranian militants a matter of weeks ago!

                    1. If you say, as the Saudi’s have said, that your criteria for support is X, then a statement by you that Y does X is kind of a statement of support for Y.

                    2. I haven’t read that they have a criteria of support.

                      They said they wanted to make sure sanctions would come back the moment Iran violated their reporting and inspections regime.

                      That isn’t a criteria of support for a deal.

                      That’s just a statement of fact.

                      If I say that I want to make sure I can keep my doctor and keep my own insurance, I’m not saying that’s my criteria for endorsing ObamaCare.

                      I’m not endorsing ObamaCare under any circumstances. I’m just saying that I want to make sure I can keep my doctor and keep my own insurance.

                      You only hear what you want to hear, and sometimes your desire to hear things is so strong, it makes you hear things that no one said.

                      You are being manipulated. I know that isn’t what you want to hear, but it’s true.

                    3. GOD DAMMIT KEN! HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO US?!?

                    4. Oh relax.

                      Bo’s just fundamentally wrong about something, and pointing out that he’s making a fool of himself in this one instance is especially hilarious.

                      And watching him cough up links–that don’t say what he says they say–is funny. In fact, it keeps getting funnier and funnier.

                      He’s making Tony looks smart by comparison right now, and this thread will always be here–as a testament to that time when Bo thought the Saudis wanted Iran to enrich their own uranium.

                      I mean, come on! How can that not be funny?

                    5. If I had a newspaper, I’d roll it up and smack you in your wet nose.

                      Ken, you need more training.

                    6. You are being manipulated. I know that isn’t what you want to hear, but it’s true.

                      Self-manipulation, FTW!

                    7. I’ve had just enough drinks to get what I want out of myself. I hope I can enthusiastically consent.

    2. Oh, Ken. I thought you knew better.

    3. Rand Paul is in it for the long haul.

      Good point. Few Republicans win the nomination their first time ’round.

      1. Bob Dole says it is Bob Dole’s turn!

        1. Is he running for banana this time? Or mushroom?

  6. Yes. Paul does not want to piss off the GOP. Then they might not like him.

  7. After the way the GOP establishment treated Paul’s father and his supporters the past couple times I’m not surprised he’s not falling over to help them out.

  8. Oh good – another Night of the Retards.

    YOU BEEN BOTOXED, JACKOFFFACE!

    1. At least I am drunk enough to appreciate it!

  9. You people are playing with joe and Tulpa in the same thread. Well. Enjoy yourselves, I guess.

    1. Some people need an intervention. It’s time to name names.

    2. Look how upset she is that others aren’t playing by her preferences!

      1. Oh, look! The self proclaimed feminist warrior just dropped a gender slur!

        1. HA! I am just drunk enough to be enbertained by “Bo”…Lord help me I hope it runs into reality before crashing too hard.

          Damme, I am starting to sound a tad like AG!

          1. Mr. Beach, you cut too damn close to the Bo…hence its reactions.

            Carry on…with the good work!

            /General Allenby

            1. I actually feel bad about that. It’s like playing Battleship with my 4 year old.

  10. Watching The Departed. God is Matt Damon plays a South Boston shitbag well. I guess playing yourself isn’t that hard.

    1. That’s Officer Wahlberg to you.

      Oh, Matt Damon.

      1. Wahlberg was from Dorchester.

        1. I’m going to have to ask my wife for clarification. She’s from those parts.

      2. Damn I hate Damon for making a movie where I like and root for Leo DiCaprio.

      3. “I’m the guy who does his job; you must be the other guy.”

    2. Have you watched the Ted series?

      1. You mean those docudramas about life in Boston where the stuffed bear played one of the parts?

        1. Ok, +1.

    3. Watch the original when it was called Infernal Affairs, you’ll be better for it.

    4. Why the fuck would fucking beloved commenter in these smashing rivers fucking deviate from the filmage smashing his or her brain to comment on said deviation, mr. John?

      I cannot fucking relate to you, Johnage. Not relatable. Not a single thread of relation. I hate fucking movies but the one’s my brain eats like sausage… you can’t even whisper in my movie or I will rip all your clothes off and throw your naked body in my pool. And if you don’t learn this tragic massage the first time and you murmur during, say, Pulp Fiction.. I will again rip your clothing off and strap your ass down to my sex machine and let a plethora of drills coated with massive porn dicks assault your mouth, asshole, vagine, or penis hole.

      Seems extreme. I understand.

      1. Thanks to Dionysus, I have HAD a small glimpse into AC’s universe…I kinda think it is cool. Carry on, cybernetic one.

        1. A huge ass of pussy swung from the stars and laser starred my little swiss monster and buried the little swiss monster in a huge pile of jiggly vagina lips and one my amazing ladies slipped on swiss cock and she texted my ass and she bled s[[i[inal fluid on your cock, you FUCKING hardcore gigolo. sweaty swiss billly boy rudert what the fuck…
          i lov my baby.

      2. The only reason to watch it is to understand how much better an actor Jack Nicholson is than any of the younger pretty boy pantywaists in that movie.

        1. you are a beautiful thread angelic, little john.

  11. So, Tulpa, you still live in Pittsburgh, right? I want to hang out. Seriously.

    1. Me too. I need to get my “punching Tulpa in the face and posting it on Youtube” off my bucket list.

      1. I would never punch Tulpa in the face and almost but not quite drown him in a toilet. How dare you make that insinuation.

        1. Warty,

          I don’t know if I thanked you for the dead-lift advice…but thanks, man. I think I am ready to give an f’ing kidney a way and recover quicker, for the shape I am in.

          Uncle Warty’s Dead-lift a lot to be in good shape for surgery program ftw!

          1. Really? Huh. Well, I’m glad to hear it.

            1. At 49 I feel, and evidence…STRENGTH. Per you, and Ripptoe, I shall recover ….quickly.

              1. Oh, and my wife thinks the muscly ass I have is …GOOD!

                /grateful

                1. Strong people are harder to kill. It’s a fact.

                  When are you getting parted out?

                    1. Well fuck. Drink up while you can, brother.

        2. I would.

          1. So much for the Non Aggression Principle.

    2. Nobody’s stopping you from hanging out. But I’m in Cincinnati these days.

      1. Why do you move around so much?

        1. Because my skills are heavily in demand all over the country and I’m no stick in the mud. And my moves have always been paid for by other people. Not that it’s any of your biz.

  12. OK, my ride for the Braves game is here. Playa, knock yourself out hero!

    1. Watching it, that is.

    2. Riiight. You totally have friends.

        1. It’s not on tbs. ghostbusters 2 is on IFC though

      1. Unless it’s a high stakes game, nobody hangs out to watch baseball. Maybe I’m wrong, but football is the only regular season sport worth making plans for.

  13. The real issue here is whether Rand Paul or Donald Trump has the worst toupee.

    1. I think it’s real hair on both of them.

      Toupes wouldn’t look that bad.

      Donald obviously has a color job.

  14. I am curious at how well Rand Paul would do if more voters would to read and learn the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Federalist Papers? If they did then candidates like Bush and Trump wouldn’t be able to just raise money, buy everyone’s opinion, and have other candidates not be able to have any media time. Voters today just read what others say and use it as their opinion not ever knowing what the foundation of what this country is based on. Then wonder why money buys everything. without actually understanding what this country is we are being bought and manipulated without even knowing how it is happening. We all know when something isn’t right but still we end up voting for a Bush or Trump. After the elections we ask the same ignorant question, “why do things stay the same?” Because ignorance is to be uninformed or unaware and are unable to learn we are not informed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.