Rand Paul

Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina Booted from Main GOP Presidential Debate Thursday

Prideful Paul won't participate in the undercard debate on Fox Business News.

|

Politico reports the grim news for Rand Paul's campaign (and Carly Fiorina's): Fox Business News says they didn't meet the set criteria for inclusion in the top-level Republican presidential candidate debate it is hosting Thursday night, and wants to relegate them to the "undercard" debate. But Rand Paul at least says hell no, he won't go:

The Kentucky senator told CNN Monday evening, just before the official announcement, that Fox Business had made "a mistake," and he wouldn't attend.

"We will not participate in anything that's not first-tier," Paul said. His campaign confirmed to POLITICO that he will sit out Thursday's debate.

One might think that, while the symbolism of being stuck in that debate is certainly crummy, that getting oneself in front of a cable network audience for an hour and having the possibility of making some news by what one says (when set up against Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Fiorina, Paul could not help but stand out) is better for a floundering campaign than not having that exposure.

But the Paul campaign doesn't seem to see it that way and is choosing to take the prideful path.

The campaign didn't seem to want to answer that question directly this afternoon, responding merely with their press release statement, which read in part that Paul will not

let the media decide the tiers of this race and will instead take his message directly to the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa. Multiple national polls including CNN, CBS, Fox, Marist and others have him in 5th or 6th place, one had him just a single point out of 4th. In multiple polls he scores ahead of Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Carly Fiorona. In yesterday's Marist Iowa poll he was alone in 5th place. In fact his numbers are on the rise in recent weeks. A poll number of five is no different than a poll number of 8 if the standard of error is +/- 3. To exclude candidates on faulty analysis is to disenfranchise the voter… This race is hitting its final stretch and Rand Paul is in it to win it. He is on the ballot in every state. He has over 1000 precinct captains in Iowa and a huge 500 person leadership team in New Hampshire. He is an important voice and has a unique message to share. He will hit the ground running this week to double down on his efforts to talk straight to the voters.

NEXT: SCOTUS Arguments Seem to Bode Ill for Public-Sector Unions

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. Paul has been polling higher that Bush and Christie at times in Iowa and Vermont the last few days, at about 5%.

    So who’s left now?

    1. The Donald, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Fatass, Jeb!, and Kaisch.

      Why they are humoring anyone other than Trump, Cruz and Rubio at this point is beyond me.

      1. There’s only one guy there that the GOP establishment loves, Rubio. Without Jeb, who else can they love?

      2. Jeb still has a ton of money. By humoring him they will get his ads.

    2. This poll had him at 2% in Iowa

      http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news…..aseID=2313

    3. “So who’s left now?”

      Bernie sanders. Maybe you should check your premises?

      1. Who’s left, not who’s on the left.

        1. Don’t mind it, it doesn’t do reading comprehension, it just types dumb stuff.

        2. +1 over his head

      2. Maybe you should check your premises?

        Life… nope
        Liberty… nope
        Property… nope

        Sanders is batting 0 for 3 at this point

        1. You must hate the poor. You’re probably responsible for those excessive numbers of deodorant choices that are creating poor people, too! And you’re probably a nasty capitalist ATM profiteer as well!

  2. One might think that, while the symbolism of being stuck in that debate is certainly crummy, that getting oneself in front of a cable network audience for an hour and having the possibility of making some news by what one says is better for a floundering campaign than not having that exposure.

    Unless he starts doing 90-minute rants that involve flipping his belt buckle or discovers that he and his father are, in fact, either black or Native American, Rand is not going to make waves. He’s deeply intelligent and well spoken, but he lacks charisma and political snap, and the GOP is fragmented & pissy.

    If he wants to make waves, he needs to do something huge to grab headlines. I don’t mean uttering those three little words we’ve all longed to hear him say for so long, but behaving like a WWF announcer or calling Obama a war criminal and a baby murderer or calling Bill Clinton out as a rapist. But Rand’s not really that type, so he’ll continue to fizzle.

    1. “I don’t mean uttering those three little words we’ve all longed to hear him say for so long”

      “Have some money”?

      1. “Honey, I’m pregnant”?

    2. those three little words

      “I love you”?
      “Save the whales”?

      1. “Nuke the whales”

        “Gotta nuke something”

      2. “Fuck this shit.”

      3. Call me Caitlyn?

    3. he lacks charisma

      I think he has more charisma than most of the rest but I’m not normal.

    4. I dunno. Rand has been willing to alienate the party by invoking his father’s blame America foreign policy.

      However, that sort of waves won’t win him the nomination. You can be an isolationist, but once you start blaming the US for stuff you aren’t going to win over Republicans.

      1. Rand is not an isolationist. You mean he’s offending a lot of GOP voters because he doesn’t want to get us unnecessarily bogged down in more foreign wars?

      2. It’s not a blame America foreign policy, it’s a blame political voluntary wars policy.

        If you can’t distinguish America from American government-of-the-moment, you deserve all the Hillrump government the rest of us will get.

        1. I think I get what the commenter meant: be anti-interventionist without pushing too hard that its America’s fault somehow. (Even if you believe it is, or is partially our fault, that doesn’t play.)

          You can also just express reservations about any interventions going forward.

          That said, I really liked having him remind people that the GOP is at least offering you choices.

      3. Did you accidentally post here instead of National Review?

    5. “and the GOP is fragmented & pissy.”

      Back in my day, we called that “an opportunity”.

  3. OT:
    Callege ball c’ship is starting; can’t have a sporting event without a heaping helping of jingoism!
    What’s with the anthem before ball games; are they afraid we’ll forget where we live?

    1. I like them at international events but yeah just dumb ritual otherwise.

    2. In Taiwan, they used to play their national anthem at the movie theater before movies.

      1. They spliced “Dixie” in at the beginning of every 16mm educational film* shown in my elementary school. We pounded out the beat on our desktops along with the song.

        (*every film old enough to have been in the AV library during the Centennial, 10 years prior)

      2. That kind of makes sense – sticking their tongue out at China, as it were.

      3. They do this at military theaters.

        1. *sniff* I remember when base theaters played movies..good times

          1. I remember 16mm movies on the mess deck, and the hootin’ and hollerin’ as we all talked to the movie. One otherwise-terrible French foreign legion movie had a scene where the commandant’s wife distracted the guards with a strip tease so her boyfriend the rebel could sneak over the wall and open the gates. The projectionist was as bored with the movie as everybody else, and ran that particular section backwards and forwards until the film threatened to melt. Another movie got ditched because the damn chaplain got himself a censor boner.

            1. I didn’t go to the flicks, but the strippers were the sort that couldn’t get gigs in the US anymore.
              Put it ON! Put it ON!!!

              1. You had strippers at sea?

                I been ripped off! All we had was too damned many seamen!

      4. Thailand as well, 40 years ago at least.

  4. “I don’t want to bomb Syria” doesn’t work with the Rethuglikkans, which is not surprising, but it is still sad.

    1. Blame ISIS. They managed to convince a war-weary nation to the point where some huge percent is willing to put troops back in. (at least in theory.)

  5. Not worried. Gary Johnson will save the day.

    /sips kool aid

    1. Female libertarians think Gary J. is dreamy…

      1. All 3 of them? Ok, I’m just kidding, I know there’s only 2.

        1. I thought cloacatarians were not necessarily female.

      2. No we don’t.

    2. And a very tasty kool-aid it is.

  6. when set up against Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Fiorina, Paul could not help but stand out) is better for a floundering campaign than not having that exposure

    Gonna have to disagree there, I wouldn’t do it if I were Paul. That’s not good exposure. He’s doing the right thing. The establishment wants him out and Foxnews is the GOP establishment mouthpiece.

    1. It worked pretty well for the other “last guy out” folks. Fiorina got lots of attention for her undercard performance. If he’d just stick to his libertarian roots and be the firebrand we’ve all grown to love, he’d do fine.

      Not win, mind you. But do fine, nonetheless.

      Remember “I don’t need the government to tell me how to buy a toilet!”? That was epic.

      1. Same thing happened to Krispy Kreme Christie. One gig on the undercard, then he got sent back to the adult table.

  7. Let’s not talk about Mr. Wonderful or the other great libertarians in the RP. Let’s talk about David Bowie. Did Millenials listen to him? I only listen to Dave Grohl, obscure punk bands recommended to my by Nick Gillespie articles where he name drops, and Kennedy’s selection of Seattle grunge bands.

    Was he any good?

    1. You do not get to call Britta the worst!

      1. He’s just singing his heart’s song.

    2. Gawd, you are stupid.

      1. Why? Because I mock the notion that Paul was ever libertarian in the first place, that he’s fundamentally out of place in an increasingly militaristic political party, that libertarians have a place in the RP, that we should even consider supporting first-rate Big Government conservatives like Cruz or Rubio.

        1. that we should even consider supporting first-rate Big Government conservatives like Cruz or Rubio

          We? What we?

          1. You deny that there are people making arguments here about how we need to elect a Republican to counter the Democratic she-beast? Stick around.

            1. Zzzzzzzzzz…

        2. The Hildebeest is a real pacifist, right Tulpa……oh, wait. What a fucking idiot.

    3. Fuck off, Tulpa.

  8. i can’t fucking believe chris christie is still a contender

    1. He’s the establishment GOP’s back-up plan in case Rubio takes the cork off his fork again.

    2. The “New Hampshire loophole” seems to have helped Christie and Kasich make the cut. I still have to blame Rand’s really shitty campaign for putting him where he is though. Seems a weird move for Fox Business. the 4 establishment guys are gonna pound on each other for the most part, with occasional self-defeating attacks on Trump and Cruz for not pledging to come to the aid of our Salafist “friends and allies in the region”. That neocon shit no longer flies with the base.

  9. Don’t be sad, Rand. Libertarians are generally hated. Do you want to be loved or to be right? You cannot be both in this country at this moment.

    I for one, am proud of what you have done in the US Senate. Carry on.

    1. What has he done? Bitch about big government? That’s brave.

      1. Thanks for proving my above point.

      2. What have Clinton and Sanders done?

        Clinton did her part to plunge Libya into chaos, and Sanders has sputtered about deodorant and the Koch brothers. *swoon*

      3. “What has he done? Bitch about big government? That’s brave.”

        He’s done more than you have, american socialist, you bitch.

        1. There really is no use. The guy is pathetic. I don’t know if he’s really old, on hard drugs, or just retarded, but there’s something wrong with him.

          On a thread a few weeks back he kept insisting that I said something I didn’t say. I cut and pasted it and asked him to explain where I said what he was referring to. Other posters were pointing out the same thing to him but despite that he just kept repeating the same thing. He’s fucked up man.

      4. “What has he done? Bitch about big government? That’s brave.”

        It at least has some merit, unlike randomly bitching about nothing.

        1. Trolls, like con artists, have to speak some truth, so that the marks swallow the rest.

      5. Rand Paul did this basically single-handedly.

        http://time.com/3902801/rand-p…..triot-act/

        People ask too much of Senators.

        Rubio, for example, dropped the subsidy killer line into the ACA.

        That’s enough for me. One important thing.

        Asking for them to do much more than one thing is a lot, as presidents don’t even do more than one or two.

  10. when set up against Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Fiorina, Paul could not help but stand out

    Don’t be so sure. Recently when I did the On The Issues matching quiz, Santorum ranked well up there, just behind Paul, in closeness to my opinions. Try it, & while you’re at it, also Project Vote Smart’s match, & anyone else’s you know about.

  11. But the Paul campaign … is choosing to take the prideful path.

    Fall goeth before the pride.

    1. So it’s all the fault of Big Cat.

    2. Pride actually goeth before *destruction*.

      It’s “an haughty spirit” that goeth before the fall, if memory serves.

      1. “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18 (KJV)

        Ha ha, I’m a Bible genius! I’m invincible!

        THUMP

        Well, *that* was predictable.

        1. There was no mention of cats in that quote, so I don’t know what you’re trying to say.

          1. You need to read it in the original Latin, which includes the phrase “fel cattus” parentheticly in that verse and nominally twiced in the verses before and after. And versing is just you English gayholes confuxoring the Bible with your machinebrain monkeyroof brainchatter. The original Latin has no verses. And the Heybro translation follows the Tai and goes so far as to abolish all punctuation and spacing as well, which probably only exists in the Latin due to the machinery of Titivilus. So much for your overbrotherly and kind anglomagnanimous arrog?ntia.

            1. And that’s ‘fel’ as in “fell”, like illwilly and disrespectful, noxious, or diabolical, not as in “felix” meaning lucky.

  12. The best political outcome for this country right now would be the emergence of an adversarial congress. There’s a high probability that the next president will be another megalomaniac sociopath. Having people like Paul in the Senate could start to chip away at the power of the executive branch.

    1. I’ll say it for the hundredth time: if Congress were doing it’s job we could elect an idiot or a tyrant as President, and not suffer unduly. Congress has abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities. The Oval office has assumed much too much authority, with only token peeps coming from the House or Senate.

      1. The congresscritters know that if they just stick to the center, they’ll have a good chance of being re-elected forever. So they won’t take a stand on anything.

        Meanwhile, presidents are rewarded for looking and acting militant. They continually grab more power.

        And then we can be the Romans!

        1. Not at all. Most congresscritters are in totally safe, gerrymandered districts. They will mouth the appropriate public platitudes of their parties, and get re-elected.

          1. Exactly, nothing will change unless we can get term limits and these assholes will never, ever do anything to upset the gravy train so that won’t happen.

      2. I’ve got your back on this one. They have totally abdicated their constitutional duties, as has the Supreme Court. Sure, the executive has been making power grabs left and right for the last couple of decades, but the other two branches are totally complicit in the deal.

  13. If the Dems had any sense at all, they’d yank Hillary right now and run Biden.

    Why you ask?

    I’ll tell you why. Trump will mop the fucking floor with Hillary with his trolling and willingness to say anything. She’ll have a nervous breakdown or a stroke or something. She won’t last more than 2 debates.

    Biden cannot be defeated in a debate by anyone, not even by Trump’s trolling which will demolish Hillary. No matter what Trump says, Biden will just grin, chuckle and look around the room. The left will take that as winning. There’s a huge advantage to being as dumb as Biden when most of your audience is just as dumb.

    1. So you’re saying its a “Who’s Dumber?”-Contest? Hmmmm. Fascinating.

      (inserts pencil in nose)

      I don’t really buy your “whomever can be the most loutish and brash” will win-theory.

      That said, i also don’t think Trump will be the GOP nominee, so i don’t think it matters.

      1. No, not at all. I’m saying that Biden’s court jester antics is the only answer that Dems have to Trumps trolling. It’s more like who’s trolliest, not dumbest. The difference being that Trump knows what he’s doing, but Biden is a natural, he’s not acting, that’s really him.

        1. “I’m saying that Biden’s court jester antics is the only answer that Dems have to Trumps trolling’

          ah. Yeah I can see that. He’s completely immune to Trump’s Troll Powers.

        2. Ok, I’ll try again. I’m not saying this or that attribute vs this or that attribute is a winner.

          I’m speaking specifically about Trump, who may be the GOP candidate if things don’t change, will just troll the shit out of most anyone who is not Joe Biden. Biden cannot be trolled. Have you ever seen the guy in a debate? He’s not clever at all, but there’s no way he’ll be trolled. Like I said, he’ll just do that stupid grin and chuckle like he always does. Which eventually drives the other person crazy out of frustration.

          1. That’s the only thing Trump has going for him. His hyper-narcissistic sociopathy allows him to deflect any and all pointed questions with non-sequitur personal barbs. It is funny and interesting. This allows people to have the delusion that Trumps trolling barbs are actually evidence of deeper intellect.

            1. Hillary has a ton of bad news that is covered as quietly as possible by the press.

              Guess who’s the only guy who can force the press to cover stuff?

              Trump.

              If Hillary didn’t have all this horrendous baggage, I’d agree and say Trump won’t do much, but she’s target rich.

    2. Really, that’s the new H&R prediction for why Hillary can’t win – that she’ll be psychologically ruined by …… a debate? She survived the humiliation of having the entire world find out her husband was cheating on her with an intern. I think she’s capable of withstanding Donald Trump’s antics for 90 minutes.

      1. No, she’s not. She’s a lot older now and in terrible health. She’s becoming reclusive and wants nothing more than to hide from the public. She might have survived a few debates with Bernie where she was under no threat of being ridiculed or anything bad, but she won’t survive the Donald. Can you just imagine the first time there’s a break and she doesn’t make it back right away? The Donald will be saying ‘Hey, where’s grandma? Someone go check on her, she might have forgot her depends! She will not, no chance, survive much of that.

        1. Hey, where’s grandma? Someone go check on her, she might have forgot her depends!

          Now, *that* is a Presidential Debate!

          1. I’m telling you, I don’t like Trump, but he will get under her skin and there will be no one to save her. No one will be able to save her because as has already been demonstrated, no one is going to make that guy shut up. And when he sees he’s getting to her, he’ll go for blood. She’ll never survive it. That is IF she even gets the nomination, which is looking like a long shot more each day.

            To be honest, I think she might be starting to have 2nd thoughts about wanting to endure a brutal campaign and then the White House. I don’t think her health will survive it anyway.

            1. Hillary like the Chocolate Jesus has never been challenged. As soon as someone goes after her she will fold like a chair.

              And Trump is going to win because this election is about immigration and he is the only one with the right position.

              What is happening in Europe right now is ending the debate over immigration. The open borders advocates are finished. They are just too arrogant and insulated from public opinion to realize it. Everyone sees what is happening in Europe and knows we are next if nothing is done.

              This is why the open borders people are all shitting their pants like Taran was today and screaming that Trump is a fascist. They are starting to realize the public might believe their lying eyes and realize open borders are national suicide.

              1. “this election is about immigration and he is the only one with the right position.”

                I was saying this in 2014.

                as regards Rand Paul in particular = that people were going to have to accept that unless RP went full “Nativist” on immigration, that he was never going to be able to sell people on anything else that libertarians might want.

                i.e. that you’d have to abandon the kind of immigration reform that Reason seems to ‘suggest at’ if you wanted Rand to do well.

                What surprised me was how few candidates in spring of last year were really banging on the “Sekure the Border”! drum the way i expected.

                I don’t think Trump is the only one with “the right position’, because he doesn’t really have a “postition” on anything, so much as just his bluster. But the fact that he was the only one to bluster consistently in the way i was expecting people to basically ceded him the issue. He was the hardest anti-immigrant, so he owned it. I thought they’d be fighting over that topic alone, but instead they handed it to him.

                1. I don’t think Trump is the only one with “the right position’, because he doesn’t really have a “postition” on anything, so much as just his bluster

                  This. I don’t see why people are shitting their pants over Trump. The guy would more than likely just be a populist type president, for better or worse. He’s not going to go full on Hitler or anything, He’s not going to build a fucking wall, he’s not going to deport all the Mexicans, people, calm the fuck down already. If there’s any candidate to really be scared of, it’s Hillary.

                  1. I don’t see why people are shitting their pants over Trump.

                    Because he’s just stupid enough and arrogant enough to start WW III.

                    And I’m only half-joking when I say that.

                    1. I said the same thing about Reagan.

                  2. “. The guy would more than likely just be a populist type president, for better or worse. He’s not going to go full on Hitler or anything, He’s not going to build a fucking wall, he’s not going to deport all the Mexicans, people, calm the fuck down already. ”

                    So are you psychic or clairvoyant? Because otherwise you’re just projecting hope as reality.

                    I choose to take Trump at his word. His supporters are certainly terrifying fascists, and I am pretty sure Trump would give them what they want, which is scapegoating of minorities.

                    1. I choose to take Trump at his word. His supporters are certainly terrifying fascists, and I am pretty sure Trump would give them what they want, which is scapegoating of minorities

                      I personally know some of his supporters. They are not terrifying fascists, they’re just ordinary people. Do you even personally know anyone who supports him? If so, tell me how they are terrifying?

                    2. Part of his art of the deal is to demand that which is far above what you know your opponent will accept and deal from that as a base. When the “whittle” you down, you get close to or what you want. He knows he can’t deport that many people, he knows he can’t build a wall like he’s saying to keep people out, he knows he can’t stop immigration based upon religion. He seems to be starting from a high demand knowing he will have to cut a deal to get close to what he finds acceptable.

              2. Well, I hope Trump does not get the GOP nomination. Right now, I’m hoping for Cruz because there’s nothing else left to hope for. Gay Jay will be all that’s left.

                And for the record, I don’t think Trump is a fascist. He’s full of shit is what he is. I’m not sure if he’d be a good president or not. I’d give 50/50 odds of it. I’d give about 70% odds he’d be better than Obama and about 90% he’d be better than Hillary.

                Never the less, I’m not voting for him so it’s not my fault either way.

              3. “this election is about immigration and he is the only one with the right position.”

                In the GOP. Real people have other priorities. Most Republicans favor some kind of amnesty deal.

              4. John is 100% correct. In the privacy of the voting booth, Trump wins. Immigration is becoming a dirtier word by the week, and we have nearly a year for more Muslim-related spectacular headlines.

                (Remember those “mythical” “no-go zones” of a while back? European police are talking about them again. Those xenophobes!)

                Mint Berry Crunch: “Surviving your husband’s affair as wife and First Lady in the ’90s is an entirely different thing than surviving a Presidential debate with Donald Trump, the master persuader.

                1. “In the privacy of the voting booth, Trump wins.”

                  AHAHAHAHAHA more delusion. Goldwater supporters were more grounded than you people. John has all the political instincts of Tulpa.

                  “Remember those “mythical” “no-go zones” of a while back?”

                  Yup. They’re still mythical.

                  “”Surviving your husband’s affair as wife and First Lady in the ’90s is an entirely different thing than surviving a Presidential debate with Donald Trump, the master persuader.”

                  BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh oh that’s precious. Trump is so persuasive that polls have him getting…crushed by Hillary, and hated by a massive chunk of his party. Here’s how that debate goes:

                  Hillary: I would like to raise this instance of Trump saying something awful about somepeople.

                  Trump : [insert rambling nonsense here]

                  Hillary: Well Mr. Trump I believe in protecting Americans while standing up for all of them, even if I disagree with them” [lookatcamerandsmile.exe]

                  And that’s how Hillary wins in a landslide. Only bumpkin retards like you think Trump has any chance.

                  1. Just like those here that think Paul has any chance. Now he’s whining, boo hoo hoo, I’m not first tier, I’m not going to play anymore. It is sad ththough that more people like trump than paul. Paul is clearly the better of the group of idiots that are above him.

              5. “What is happening in Europe right now is ending the debate over immigration. The open borders advocates are finished.”

                Is the science settled?

                “They are just too arrogant and insulated from public opinion to realize it. Everyone sees what is happening in Europe and knows we are next if nothing is done.”

                I’m sure you and your fellow fascists would love to believe that. Real People aren’t down with hysterical xenophobic pants-shitting.

                1. Real people actually look at polls and are grounded in reality. It is possible to look at something totally without bias you know? No of course not, Shikha Graham has decided to call those people fascists and engage in his own fantasy world where he’s the most knowledgeable man in the world. It’s sad in a pathetic sort of way.

      2. Hillary would make Algore look like a patient saint if she debated Trump. And she wouldn’t be much better against Cruz, who has a remarkable and admirable ability to piss off Democrats. His cool decimation of Feinstein in 2013 was amazing.

        Hillary really needs Rubio to get the candidacy if she’s going to hold her own in the debates.

        1. She won’t need to hold her own if she remembers her Depends.

        2. Here’s Hillary’s key to surviving the debates.

          “I believe the Constitution protects the right to get an abortion, but doesn’t protect the right to own a deadly assault weapon. Also I’ll go after those 1%-ers, even though I’m one of them. Did I mention I’m a woman?”

          As long as she stays on message, the coalition that comfortably elected Obama twice won’t completely fall apart.

          1. I believe the Constitution protects the right to get an abortion, but doesn’t protect the right to own a deadly assault weapon

            So just go out and identify herself as dumber than shit?

            1. “Just go out and tell the Dem base what they want to hear,” is how I’d put it.

          2. Yup. There is absolutely no reason to believe Hillary would fall apart in that debate. That is just more fantasy.

            1. She might not fall apart, but at the end Trump will leave her like a candle in a sword-fight scene: Seemingly in one piece, but separated in the middle.

              Trump’s got mobs of cheering people filling arenas. About 20% of Democrats now say they’ll vote him. Hillary’s got even my Democrat friends dismayed or worried. She’s going to win a debate with Trump on gun control and for illegal immigration and Muslim immigration? It is to laugh.

              To me it looks increasingly like the Dems are headed for an historic loss like ’80 or ’84. What libertarians should be doing is preparing targeted anti-government initiatives that would appeal to both a GOP congress and to President Trump. Want to get rid of entire government programs, folks? Your chance is coming up.

              1. Thanks, I’ll pass on trying to win over the fascists.

                “Trump’s got mobs of cheering people filling arenas.”

                So did Goldwater.

                ” About 20% of Democrats now say they’ll vote him.”

                LOL not happening. They’ll fall in line while part of the GOP base just walks from Trump.

                ” She’s going to win a debate with Trump on gun control and for illegal immigration and Muslim immigration?”

                She’s going to win in a contest against a guy who is easily painted as incoherent racist/bigot. Millenials will pour out to vote against him. Hillary wins in a landslide.

      3. Trump can plant memes in the populace’s mind. “Bush is low energy, low T.”

        Hillary is even easier.

        investigated by FBI, secret emails, deals with Russian investment banks, bill = bill Cosby, her health, etc.

        Oh, and she’s not likable.

        Also, Trump will attract black voters. That is death knell stuff for Democrats.

    3. Your political senses are baffling. Trump as nom = President Clinton. It’s just that simple. Biden might do better, but they’d both crush Trump.

      1. I’ll bet you right now that if it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton, Trump wins.

        1. If you believe it, it’s probably wrong. Again: you are ignorant know-nothing bumpkin trash. You should really just stick to shovelling cow shit or whatever it is you do.

          1. Your flailing and frothing is kind of funny, but mostly just irritating and sad. I shovel code and words and pixels and turn them into corporate websites and numerous other things. And when you’re not rooting for more live Muslims in the West and more dead Muslims back in their home countries, what do you do?

            1. He does his homework, says a prayer that he’ll be taller tomorrow, and is tucked in by his mommy.

      1. I like how the artist’s rendering of Sanders is basically “Gollum in a Suit”

        1. A bad suit, amirite?

      2. LOL, that’s great. Bernie the Berninator. Bern the village, Bern the peasants!

        Am I the only one who thinks it’s hillarious that the only 2 candidates the Dems (party of diversity) have is an old white grandma that everyone hates and an old white commie? They are really becoming real life parodies.

        1. its weird when life imitates art

        2. And let’s not leave out Trump and the rest of the Republican “clown car”! This is truly the most hilarious election of my lifetime.

  14. I think it would be useful for people to go back in time 9 months, and realize that the “Worst Case Scenario” being posited was a “Bush/Clinton” re-run.

    I doubt anyone would think of a “Trump/Sanders” face-off as a vast improvement.

    Not that i think it will come to that. Just… well, i think its informative to realize, “it can always get worse”.

    1. Oh well, peak corruption was getting boring, we need peak derp. And damnit, we’re going to have it!

    2. Hell yeah it can get worse. See you in 2020.

      1. I got some 55-gallon drums and a bunch of pallets I can break up. Party at my place?

    3. I doubt anyone would think of a “Trump/Sanders” face-off as a vast improvement.

      I would. Bush/Clinton sounds like “the fix was in”. Trump/Sanders is more “democracy kinda works”.

      1. “Trump/Sanders is more “democracy kinda works”.”

        Yeah if you hate freedom and love national-socialism.

        1. Another comment over your head. It’s hard being so short, I suppose.

  15. Hilarious.

    You Team Red! shitkickers had this coming.

    1. Lick those cankles buttpig, lick em!

    2. Still planning to vote for libertarian-ish pro-gun Democrat Brian Schweitzer, Dave?

      1. Schweitzer would be a factor of hundreds better than any of the idiots who could win this year.

        1. And yet, even though the nomination was his for the taking, he opted not to pursue it. Weird, huh?

          1. He had no chance in the Dem primaries.

            The Dem base is as stupid as the GOP base.

            1. “He had no chance in the Dem primaries”? I recall you singing a different tune at one point.

              Oh well, maybe the GOP Bigshits can still install Jeb as their nominee, so your insight on where each party is at right now will at least prove half-accurate.

              1. I said he would win the general. Which he would.

                I admit to being wrong about Bush. I thought Trump would crash and burn and some old establishment name would slide in.

                Trump is not ‘Herman Caining’ at all. He is picking support up nationally.

        2. Except that he’ll never again run for office because he beat his wife and a lot of people here know it.

      2. No, he’s going to vote for Hillary, like he’s always been going to do. He’ll say so as soon as she gets the nomination. He’s gonna lick those cankles.

        1. I’m just looking forward to him copy-pasting whatever good economic news he finds in WaPo starting in 2017 and saying DAMN THIS CLINTON ECONOMY IS AWESOME!

          1. The Bill Clinton economy was awesome.

            1. Cold War peace dividends, cheap oil and a dot com bubble.

              1. Also ‘The era of Big Government is over” lasted until 2002.

              2. Let’s not forget the Gingrich House, which got us welfare reform, a (sadly temporary) end to farm subsidies, and several other nice things.

            2. You mean the Newt Gingrich Contract with America Economy?

              1. I should have read the whole subthread, TLAH.

  16. Check police thuggery in action:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLnhSl1ajyc

    They were looking to fuck this kid up.

      1. Yeah, it’s too late, I worked all day and now I’m sort of relaxed. Not a good time for nut punches.

        1. It’s the perfect time for nut punches. It has something similar in common with the Spanish Inquisition.

          1. Click away!

          2. something similar in common

            Paging Rhywun….

  17. The worst part about the Tarantino/ghetto thing is that I’m now feeling angry and irritable on Tarantino’s behalf.

    Actually, no. Sow, reap, ye shall.

    1. The revolution eats its own.

  18. Is this the right time for a reason.com piece on how rand Paul’s abandonment of libertarian principle on military intervention, immigration reform, defense spending, gay rights, abortion, etc., etc., constitutes the smartest political strategy since V.I. Lenin’s takeover of the Winter Palace and thus the greatest thing to happen to libertarianism since Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative?

    1. “…since V.I. Lenin’s takeover of the Winter Palace…’

      Fucking ignoramus…
      “The actual takeover of Petrograd was organised by Trotsky. On 24 October, units of the Red Guards took control of the city. Key buildings, power stations, railway and tram stations, important bridges were in Bolshevik hands. A large warship that was sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, the “Aurora”, steamed up the river Neva and trained its guns on the Winter Palace, where the Provisional Government was located.
      On the night of the 25th/26th October, the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace and arrested the Provisional Government.”
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/…..evision/4/

      1. Sevo, please don’t feed the trolls.

    2. Longing for the days of L. Beria and the NKVD to return, eh?

    3. Yea, 70 years of awesome followed.

    1. “What Bernie Sanders has to do is say that the Second Amendment says — which he has, of late — the Second Amendment says you can limit who can own a gun, that people who are criminals shouldn’t have guns,” [Biden] said.

      Perhaps a sign of dementia.

      1. Well, yes, uncle Joe is batshit crazy, and so is Bernie. I meant a sign that the current admin might be shying away from supporting Hillary. That would be a bad sign for Hill, she might need Obama to keep her out of prison.

        1. Laws are for small people. The Important People never go to the pokey. Just ask David Petraus!

          The worst thing Hillary would face is an indictment, and you know PBP and his ilk would still vote for her.

    1. Meh, Ducey vetoed a bill from the pig lobby last year that would have instituted a 60 day waiting period between an officer-involved shooting and the making of that officer’s name public.

      I doubt he’ll sign this one too.

      1. I hope not.

  19. Stupid move. With only four candidates in the undercard, he’d get way more airtime than he’s been getting in the main debate. I predict nothing but scoffing from the press.

    1. Agreed. I think its a huge error as if he even came in 3rd in any of the early primaries he’d suddenly be given huge amounts of attention. At this stage, any free airtime is gold.

      1. Agreed. His campaign is just dumb dumb dumb.

        1. I’m not sure he really likes campaigning.

    2. Rand has a curious habit of remaining rigidly principled in some areas (e.g campaigning like a college professor instead of a rabble-rouser like Cruz and Trump) and completely willing to play cynical politics in others (e.g going full-Cruz birther).

      He’s run a pretty underwhelming campaign as a result.

      1. Yep.

        He’s been stupidly rigid where he needed to bend, but then bendy in places where his supporters want to see some backbone.

        1. I think he lost it early on by pandering to SoCons too much. That’s why he never really got going. He seemed to not value his libertarian base and instead abandoned us and went chasing the SoCons, when really, why does a SoCon need Rand when they have plenty of real SoCons to choose?

          1. Those people make up a large part of the GOP base so there’s really no choice about it.

            Rand probably lost it when he was terrible during his first debate.

            1. And none of them are ever going to vote for a Rand Paul in the primaries. They have real SoCons to vote for. Not sure why you can’t understand what I’m saying. If you disagree, tell me why any SoCon will vote for Rand when they have the likes of Santorum and Huckleberry? Even Cruz at least talks religion, so Rand wouldn’t even stand a chance against Cruz.

              Doesn’t matter how many SoCons there are in the party, none of them are going to vote for a libertarian. They will vote for Rand in the general, but never in the primaries.

              1. He can’t understand what you are saying because the words are too big. Picture a short 7th grader who tries to goad his friends into fights.

          2. He lost it when the shit storm that is the Middle East started getting more pronounced.

  20. Rand, just go on the kiddie debate and do this.

  21. Well, then it’s settled. To war, to war, Freedonia’s going to war. Does anybody offer defense industry mutual funds besides Fidelity?

  22. BTW. If you even have a passing interest in NCAA football, now is the time to turn the game on.

    1. I think that td kickoff return might have just clinched it

      1. Watched a good bit of it; I could drain the pasta in the Clemson D.

  23. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  24. Just saw a great comment over in The Federalist when people were talking about partisan diversity.

    “The GOP lineup is so diverse they’ve got a Democrat as the front-runner.”

    1. The only Democrat Trump is like is George Wallace.

      1. CRIPPLE FIGHT

  25. Oh and again to be clear: Trump has no chance of getting elected president. A large section of the GOP base and conservative movement hate him and so do a lot normal people. Goldwater would, from his grave, say “ouch” in response to what Hillary does to him.

    Further, if the GOP is dumb enough to nominate Trump, that stink will haunt them FOREVER. Worse than Bush. Anytime the notion of voting GOP gets raised because of the horrible things President Chelsea is doing people will just throw out ‘oh you mean the Trump-lovers?’.

    1. Trump is enormously popular here in the South. He would easily win the SEC primaries today.

    2. Trump is enormously popular here in the South. He would easily win the SEC primaries today.

      1. CRIPPLE AND SQUIRREL FIGHT

    3. You are vastly underestimating Trump’s powers of persuasion, and over-estimating the powers of the “right” people. Yes, the “right” people in power in the parties and the media and secular establishments don’t like Trump. The leftist fringe of course hates him. But they don’t elect Presidents by themselves.

      Also, most voters won’t be paying full attention until late summer. Trump has a lot of time to change minds, and he’s not a stupid guy. He knows that winning a nomination and winning an election are two different things. And he knows that lots of people like to vote for winners, and be part of a bandwagon. That bandwagon has clearly begun. Hillary or Bernie will be seen as old, weak, and out of touch. They’ll be defending importing Muslim refugees and hoping there won’t be another spectacular terror attack or newsworthy Muslim crime wave in Europe. And, of course, something like that is a virtual certainty between now and the election.

      Whoever’s furthest from an open borders platform will win. That’s Trump.

      1. “Whoever’s furthest from an open borders platform will win.”

        Again, projecting your neurotic obsession onto the population at large.

        “You are vastly underestimating Trump’s powers of persuasion”

        We have found a species more pathetic than the Obama voter.

        Trump isn’t persuading anyone besides bumpkin retards like you. He’s persuaded about everyone he’s going to. Hillary has all the material she could ever hope for to tar up Trump if he gets the nom. There’s no persuading that away. She just needs a few racist-sounding quotes and then normal Americans-the ones you are totally disconnected from- go ‘ew racist Imma vote against him’. Especially Millenials. They will flood the booths to vote against him.

        “And, of course, something like that is a virtual certainty between now and the election.”

        I’m sure you’re wetting your panties thinking about it.

        30,000 Somali refugees and not one attack. Keep hoping.

        1. “Whoever’s furthest from an open borders platform will win.”

          Projection does not equal reality, weedhopper. I’m sorry, but you can’t will reality, even with you being the smartest person in the world.

          There’s a right position, or at least a reasonable position on immigration, and it’s somewhere in between Trump’s bullshitting and your fantasy land open borders.

        2. 30,000 Somali refugees and not one attack. Keep hoping.

          Not counting the ones who went back to Somalia to commit attacks, of course. Obviously there’s no need to worry!

        3. Uzbeki refugee was just sentenced, and two Iraqi refugees just were arrested.

          I know it sucks for the good refugees, but it freaks voters out.

          What angers me even more was NPR interviewing some government spokeshole who used very specific language to claim zero terrorists from refugees.

          Sorry, but in 2009 we already had two guys who were ex-IED guys caught.

          Supposedly we increased “screening” and yet were getting two more Iraqis who joined ISIS.

          its the governments all playing this game of “I see nothing!”

  26. This is a hell of a football game.

    1. turd, maybe you can get attention if you take off your clothes and run around in the street. Please go.

  27. Well, that’s depressing. I get some of the people left in the main stage, but to keep kasich over rand? I’ve at least seen a few rand stickers around. Who’s this John guy?
    I think I’ll go pour the rest of my black label bushmills in my mouth. Mmm

  28. Come join us over at reddit.com/r/randpaul

    Let’s organize a moneybomb and steal the spotlight.

    Remember, Remember the 5th of November.

    1. I’m all with you, man. Most people here have been supporting Rand since forever. It’s too late this time though. How about a ‘stop pandering to SoCons, Rand, now that’s it’s already too late and please remember that in 2020 when the countries even more fucked up than it is now’ moneybomb?

    1. You can if most independents and 20% of the other party votes for you.

      You are probably too young to remember all the distressed Republicans who said they wouldn’t back Reagan in 1980, and voted for John Anderson instead.

      1. 20% of the Dems are not voting Trump. And I doubt nearly enough independents are.

      2. He wasn’t born. So there’s that.

      3. You’re obviously too young to remember what really happened in 1980.

        Reagan won the popular vote by 8.5 million votes, and carried 44 states.
        Anderson got less than 6 million, carried no states, thus had no impact.
        In percentages, Reagan had 50.8%, Carter at 41.0% and Anderson 6.6%

        You may also be too young to know the importance of Reagan Democrats, or that Reagan and Goldwater were prominent supporters of homosexuals. Reagan had crushed one of the most powerful elements of the so-called Moral Majority, the Anita Bryant Crusade.

        He was the determining factor in defeating California’s Briggs Initiative to ban gay teachers in public schools. His defense of gay school teachers was an open and direct attack on the religious right. Homosexuality is NOT a choice he stated forcefully. (Fuck you Ben Carson) He ridiculed the notion that gay teachers were a threat to our children, saying homosexuality is “not communicable like measles.” (lol)

        And Reagan was not fucking crazy enough to campaign for the support of social liberals, while also calling for religious tent revivals! (OMG)

        Are you old enough to know that Anderson ran to the left of Reagan? FAR to the left. It was the Rockefeller Republicans who opposed Reagan.

        (None of this has anything to do with Reason and Doherty being Propaganda Ministers for the extreme social conservatism — and open bigotry — of the Paulista Cult. )

        1. Yes, I remember Anderson running to the left of Reagan. That was my point: some “cultured” Republicans disdained him in similar (not identical) ways that some Republicans now disdain Trump. Both were “embarrassing” and “acting” and “dangerous” and “stupid” and “fascist.” But both have a broad base of support among people who didn’t like the way things are going. Both projected strength and optimism at a time when many were depressed or worried. Both have significant appeal among blue-collar Democrats.

          At first I scoffed at Scott Adams’ prediction that Trump would win in a landslide (65% of the vote). Now I’m not so sure. I still think it’s very unlikely, but it’s not completely insane as a prediction. OTOH, all of 2015’s common predictions of Trump’s inevitable fall have proven false, and so the predictions of his crushing defeat at the hands of Hillary seem ever more absurd.

          1. (click) Got it! Thanks. When more than half the electorate opposes Trump, it’s hard to believe he could beat anyone at all in the general. Plus, the primary is essentially destroying the GOP. They’re toast — just as Goldwater predicted would be caused by what was then called the Moral Majority. And why Reagan ignored them.

    2. Well, Trump is polling quite well in Iowa. Cruz is holding on to a 1% or so lead. Bush is around 4% in Iowa. What you said makes no sense.

  29. What a boring article to end the day on.

  30. This was inevitable from the first debate when he came out flailing against Trump. Who does he think he’s appealing to in his refusal to participate in a debate? All he has to do is articulate simple libertarian positions and apply them to current issues with a straight face. What horrible advice he is getting. I’d love to know the story behind that.

    1. Rand blew it very early on when he started pandering to SoCons and backing off on his libertarian roots. That started happening long before the debates started. And I’ve been saying it’s a mistake since he first started doing it. What could he possibly gain by doing that? SoCons don’t like Rand, they think he’s a liberal. They think that anyone who doesn’t constantly go on about religion and doesn’t want to bomb all them damn fureners and make war on the pot, is a liberal. They have their own candidates. Remember the sizeable youth movement Ron had going in 2008 and 2012? Rand had that handed to him and he fucking blew it by pandering to SoCons. What’s the appeal of just another Republican? If he hadn’t of done that, he would be polling 10-15% right now instead of 5% or less, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

      1. I agree he’s pandering and I agree he totally blew it, though I wonder if it’s SoCons, or if it’s a funder who he has to satisfy or if he has a really bad handler who he trusts implicitly for some reason. Or if he really believes what he says. I actually would not be surprised if he’s not a libertarian after all. That’s ok, maybe that’s why Johnson is running. (Apologies in advance if I have committed apostasy – sometimes my ignorance runs ahead of my arrogance.)

  31. Something tells me this is just not an election I am going to be interested in following much longer. Sheesh.

  32. “Rand blew it very early on when he started pandering to SoCons and backing off on his libertarian roots.”

    In what way? What could he have said to make himself more popular at the expense of the SoCon candidates?

    Should he have said that the persecution of Christians abroad isn’t such a big deal, rather than denounce such persecution, as he did?

    Should he have endorsed gay marriage rather than saying leave it to the states?

    Should he have said Israel could go [bleep] itself?

    “They think that anyone who doesn’t constantly go on about religion and doesn’t want to bomb all them damn fureners and make war on the pot, is a liberal.”

    Sounds like the worst parts of Christie and Trump, not like SoCons per se.

    1. His commercial attack on Cruz and Rubio was retarded – they let in the terrorists with free housing and welfare. Haha what? Instead he should say – “Let’s not give in to this ISIS hysteria. The arabs need to solve this problem and we need to stop being friends with the Saudis who are funding them.” Stuff like that.

      1. “Instead he should say [etc]”

        OK, fair point, though if ISIS is urging terrorist attacks on Americans, war may be called for.

        And I don’t see how letting in large numbers of Syrians and giving them welfare is something that only bothers those silly SoCons. Did Trump lose votes by emphasizing the immigration issue?

        Check this out – the NY Times of course tries to be very delicate in handling the matter, which makes the news all the more striking:

        “LONDON ? The police in Sweden, responding to accusations of a cover-up, said on Monday that they were investigating why the public had not been informed about sexual assaults by men reported to be migrants at a festival in Stockholm last summer.

        “In echoes of the scandal in Cologne, Germany, where the police are investigating scores of assaults, often involving asylum seekers, on New Year’s Eve, the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported over the weekend that a gang of migrant youths had groped young girls at a festival in August.”

        1. And I love this very Times-ian interjection:

          “David Brax, a researcher of hate crimes at the University of Goteborg, said by phone that the accusations would help agitate an already intensifying backlash toward immigrants as countries across Europe were grappling with fears that terrorists and criminals were seeking to enter the Continent by masquerading as refugees.

          “He noted that the police might have hesitated to publicize the assaults for fear of stoking revenge attacks against immigrants.”

          1. On the other hand, the lies enabled gender-based hate crimes, so I guess that between protect women and protecting followers of an ideology of general-purpose hate, we know which the progs prefer (the one that produces chaos and a desire for stronger government).

            When the molotov-ribbentrop pact between the progressive charlatanate and the islamic caliphate collapses, it will be epic. Like, Trojan horse epic.

        2. Hahaha right the sexual assaults in Europe are the fault of Cruz and Rubio. “Did Trump lose votes by emphasizing the immigration issue?” Hahaha yes pandering like we were just saying. Obviously he has advisors like you around him. And that’s the problem, thanks for answering my question.

          1. I am challenging a couple of claims:

            Numero Uno, I question whether voter suspicion of Syrian migrants is a distinctively SoCon attitude. If anything, key SoCons like Robert George want to admit genuine refugees – victims of religious persecution.

            Numero two-o, I question Hyperion’s claim that Paul lost votes by reaching out to SoCons.

            In other words, his immigration ad may or may not have been retarded on the merits, but I don’t see how such an ad would lose votes.

            1. “his immigration ad may or may not have been retarded on the merits, but I don’t see how such an ad would lose votes.” – Read that sentence to yourself. Slowly. Out loud if you have to.

              1. A retarded ad might not lose him votes?

                1. Ah I see the problem. You are not a libertarian, you are a libertard. Sorry for the interruption, please proceed in your pandering:

                  1. Let me put it this way – kiss my ass.

                    I’m not *endorsing* the use of retarded ads, I’m denying that these ads are (a) aimed at SoCons as such or (b) losing him votes.

                    1. Let me put it this way – if this is quality of advice he’s getting then no wonder.

                    2. Let me try to put it this way:

                      You folks haven’t shown me that pandering to SoCons is the reason Rand is losing votes.

                      And the immigration example may be pandering, but it’s not pandering to SoCons as such, because while some SoCons may be all “let’s admit genuine victims of persecution,” your Trump voter will say “screw it, seal off the borders.”

                    3. Notorious UGCC|1.12.16 @ 3:04AM|#
                      Let me try to put it this way: You folks haven’t shown me that pandering to SoCons is the reason Rand is losing vote

                      How many people share his yearning for nationwide “religious tent revivals.” … COMBINED WITH reaching out to the tolerant left …a rather wacky strategy.

                      One could perhaps take that the other way, and assume his “liberal” positions cost him socon votes. But it’s ONLY his socon pandering which belies his liberarianism.

                      Strategically, he’s aiming his campaign at voters who barely exist. VERY extreme socons who strongly support civil liberties and individual liberty.

                    4. I mean, ads against liberal immigration from the Middle East.

    2. In what way? What could he have said to make himself more popular at the expense of the SoCon candidates?

      Be a libertarian. No fucking rent revivals.

      Should he have endorsed gay marriage rather than saying leave it to the states?

      Like his father, he’s an anti-libertarian who confuses States Rights with Federalism.
      1) Learn the Ninth Amendment.
      2) Consider the concept that fundamental rights were NEVER a state issue (gasp), and what a wacky concept.
      3) Learn the key difference between the Federalism of our Founders, and the “States Rights” fascism of southern racists,

      The math is elementary. 59% of Americans describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. (Cato/Zogby Poll). That makes them libertarian, by the definition of libertarianism for 40 years. And the libertarian label is rejected by even 91% of libertarians!!.(same poll) Explore beyond the narrow confines of Reason Magazine, who mostly created this massive disparity between labels and values.

      Oh yeah, ignoring 59% of the voters is … what?

      1. “59% of Americans describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. (Cato/Zogby Poll). That makes them libertarian, by the definition of libertarianism for 40 years.”

        Are you sure about that?

        I’m fairly sure that a lot of “social liberals” define social liberalism to include gun control, protecting birth control from Teh Corporations, and the like.

        1. Exactly – he’s listening to people who will prattle on endlessly about percentages if he says this and percentages if he says that. THAT’S the problem. Thanks again.

          1. OK, I admit I’m not 100% sure which part of my comment you disagree with.

            You *don’t* think that many self-described social liberals are for gun control and against Hobby Lobby?

            1. The details are irrelevant. All he has to do is include the following words in his speeches: freedom, tolerance, founding fathers, first amendment, second amendment, prosperity, peace, freedom, principles, democracy. Which he does sometimes then gets derailed by various forms of nonsense calculated to appease warmongers and his handlers who say, “You gotta attack Trump on x! You gotta attack Rubio on y!” No he doesn’t need to attack all he needs to do is articulate basic libertarian principles with a straight face.

              1. OK, fair enough, but attacking Trump and Rubio isn’t the same thing as appeasing SoCons.

                1. And Mr. Hihn was using a common meme that people who tell pollsters that they’re fiscally conservative and socially liberal are libertarian.

                  IIRC, if the pollster tells the respondents that a positive answer makes them libertarian, the yes answers go down about 10 points. And even then, the yes answers could simply mean assuming that if libertarians are socially liberal, they hate Hobby Lobby, too.

                  1. Notorious UGCC
                    And Mr. Hihn was using a common meme that people who tell pollsters that they’re fiscally conservative and socially liberal are libertarian.

                    CATO defined it that way, the same way it’s been defined since 1969.

                    IIRC, if the pollster tells the respondents that a positive answer makes them libertarian, the yes answers go down about 10 points.

                    You don’t recall correctly, so I’ll clarify.

                    even then, the yes answers could simply mean assuming that if libertarians are socially liberal, they hate Hobby Lobby, too.

                    Which mostly a highly biased conservative might conclude. (They HATE the word liberal)

                    Correcting the record, Cato’s pollster began with two comparative questions. 59% accepted, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”

                    When they added “also known as libertarian” to the same question, the result dropped by 25%. When they asked “libertarian” alone, a mere 5.3% would define themselves that way. On pure Marketing, the libertarian brand is “toxic.”

                    A majority of Americans support the libertarian core value of tolerance, but not our brand (label). This was the only poll I’ve seen, which used a Brand Awareness discipline.

                2. Attacking Rubio and Cruz is direct pandering – “I’m so conservative I make them look like liberals!”

                  1. If he’s calling them too lenient on immigration, he could be pandering, but not to SoCons as such.

                    From Hyperion’s comments, I thought that in talking about SoCons we were talking about the Sky Daddy bleevers, who as far as I can tell are not uniquely hostile to immigration as compared to the secular Trump voters.

                    1. “The United States should priotirize the resettlement of Syrian refugees “based on their vulnerability,” the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said Tuesday. [Chairman Robert George] noted that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) has targeted religious minorities for persecution.”

                      Robert George is a prominent SoCon Sky Daddy bleever. He doesn’t speak for all SoCons, but his example shows that being SoCon Sky Fairy worshipper doesn’t make you anti-immigration.

                    2. prioritize.

                      (and the article is from December)

              2. c

                All he has to do is include the following words in his speeches: freedom, tolerance, founding fathers, first amendment, second amendment, prosperity, peace, freedom, principles, democracy.

                But he fails to actually follow almost all of that. And he swerves off into wacky shit like tent revivals.

                And if you visit his Senate website, he walks both sides of the fence on abortion. It should be a state issue, but he also brags of sponsoring a FEDERAL law to ban all abortions at conception! Then he says he’ll do everything as a FEDERAL legislation to ban all abortions.

                That’s as wacky as his dad defending DOMA overruling state laws, while also opposing what he and the southern racists call an “intrusive federal government.” ALL voters aren’t that dense.

                all he needs to do is articulate basic libertarian principles with a straight face.

                You really think he’d reverse so many of his core positions?

                1. Fine. I believe you. But if not him then who? Is Johnson any better?

                  1. dajjal|
                    Is Johnson any better?

                    He was infinitely better … until he fucked up by pandering to the sheer hysteria of Sharia Law,which he’s walked back only partially.

            2. Notorious UGCC
              You *don’t* think that many self-described social liberals are for gun control and against Hobby Lobby?

              Umm, that’s why we’ve been combining it with fiscal conservatism …. for all of 46 years now …. and arguing against the obsolete bipolar world where everyone is ONLY left or right. Also for 46 years

        2. Are you sure about that?

          Here’s a link to the proof. Scroll down to “How libertarians see themselves” The poll was commissioned by Zogby, a top pollster,

          http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

          I’m fairly sure that a lot of “social liberals” define social liberalism to include gun control, protecting birth control from Teh Corporations, and the like.

          But you already said you are totally uninformed on this. Polls also show a LOT more than conservatives opposing strict gun regulations. Might that be … tolerance, which is the entire point?

          Birth control as (I think) you frame it is secondary to the entire concept of the employer-paid healthcare bequeathed to us by FDR. And yet another issue fucked up because our side is typically anti-gummint instead of pro-liberty. No free marketer ever pointed out that most pills cost under 10 bucks, so that processing the fucking claim costs even more.

          Are you aware that Oregon, one of the most progressive states in America, just made birth control an over-the-counter item, no more prescriptions needed, thus no longer an insurance matter? Solutions instead of whining! Conservatives have babbled a lot about over-the-counter, but they’re more interested in imposing anti-abortion mandates and otherwise shitting on individual rights — a much larger factor for social liberalism.

          1. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans are for more comprehensive background checks for gun purchases. But when asked if they are for stricter gun control, that number drops off significantly. Much like your analysis of libertarianism above, it’s a branding issue.

            1. ajkelly451@gmail.com
              Polls show that the vast majority of Americans are for more comprehensive background checks for gun purchases. But when asked if they are for stricter gun control, that number drops off significantly.

              That’s why I phrased it the way I did.

              Much like your analysis of libertarianism above, it’s a branding issue.

              That was Cato’s issue. I’m not sure it’s a branding issue or another failure of the far right (including the Paulista Cult) to understand that NO fundamental rights are absolute. They can conflict with each other, which is a fundamental moral premise in Natural Law — when all “unalienable” rights are, by definition, precisely equal to each other.

              We all know there’s no absolute right to free speech, or even to life, so how can gun rights be absolute?

      2. Explore beyond the narrow confines of Reason Magazine, who mostly created this massive disparity between labels and values.

        It’s not Reason that created this massive disparity, it’s libertarian politicians. In different words, it’s people like you who give libertarianism a bad name.

        1. Rational Exhuberance
          It’s not Reason that created this massive disparity, it’s libertarian politicians. In different words, it’s people like you who give libertarianism a bad name.i

          Amen.
          And people like the Paulista Cult, politicians which Reason essentially included as so-called libertarians.

          In 1957, Orval Faubus used the Arkansas state militia, armed force to enforce racial segregation on Little Rock’s Central High School. President Eisenhower called in federal troops, ordered to use force if necessary to defend the equal rights of 9 black school kids.

          Faubus later defended his action by attacking an intrusive federal government imposing its will on a sovereign state, Precisely as the Paulista Cult says today. Was it the Paul’s who destroyed our brand? Or Gillespie and Doherty?

          What if Obama called out federal troops to defend marriage equality? Would the Cult stand with Faubus or with Eisenhower? And what of moral principles?

  33. I think it’s odd that Reason keeps talking about Rand Paul, considering

    1. He’s not a libertarian
    2. He has a 0% chance of getting the Republican nomination
    3. He has a 0% chance of getting elected president

    1. Perhaps he has a pretty good chance of being re-elected Senator?

    2. Though you do have to admit, he’s not a libertarian a whole heck of a lot less than almost everyone in Washington DC.

    3. eyeroller, it’s because a “libertarian moment” seems essential for Reason’s fundraising.
      And it’s easier to attract bigots and haters like the Paulista Cult, instead of the MUCH larger number of “Nolan Libertarians” (fiscally conservative and socially liberal), a majority of Americans which our movement has essentially ignored for nearly 50 years. Even with several thousand Nolan Libertarians elected to local office — and totally abandoned.

      So we now see great advances in libertarian ideals … created solely by Nolan Libertarians for a near half century … and reported by Reason to Movement Libertarians …. who then claim credit for things they had nothing to do with. The Libertarian Establishment has inserted itself into America’s Political Elite … as proven by the total lack of even a single libertarian policy to deal with the economic and political collapse of America.

      As Katheryn Mangu Ward brilliantly described Ron Paul, “great on principle but terrible on policy.”

  34. Is it just me or does this just make Rand appear even more like a baby than many in the GOP already perceive him to be?

    1. Yes, it’s just you.

      1. “Wahhh! No one loves me, so I’ll just bitch about it and maybe some cynics will love me a little bit more!”

        1. Maybe he’s afraid of carly.

    2. even more like a baby than many in the GOP already perceive him to be?

      More like the thug he’s always been. Declaring war on Fox News was almost as stupid as his call for nationwide religious tent revivals. We should be embarrassed for him.

      He should stay in the Senate where he’s one of very few with the gift of creating bipartisan solutions to many sensitive issues … or just knowing where and how that may be possible. For anything else, he has absolutely nothing to offer — continuing the precedent of his dad. Saying “no” has never achieved anything at all. Let Rand continue to propose and develop actual solutions. He and Wyden may be a modern-day Kennedy and Hatch.

  35. Wait, I had something for this… something about “the libertarian moment femtosecond…”

  36. Unlike Trump, Paul sadly doesn’t seem to understand the media and show biz.

    1. True. Kennedy was the first president that used television to this advantage and he won. Reagan was an actor who was comfortable in front of a camera and he won.

    2. Unlike Trump, Paul sadly doesn’t seem to understand the media and show biz.

      Or individual liberty. Trump, at least, does not seem to support using government guns to impose one set of anti-liberty religious laws on everyone. Trump’s immigration fascism is not religious fascism.

  37. I don’t think it’s floundering. I think his campaign is foundering. I mean, it’s both but… hard to imagine it isn’t actually sinking even though it’s still struggling.

  38. “We will not participate in anything that’s not first-tier,” Paul said.

    Then why are you still in the running? It’s clear your campaign isn’t “first-tier.”

  39. I don’t care about Paul as a candidate, but if I were advising him I might suggest cooking up something that shows independence and creativity and underscores his supposed principles. Why not have his own “debate” on 60 Minutes or something: an hour of him versus whichever second-tier candidate provides the most contrast?

    1. Because he’d likely make an even bigger public ass of himself.

    2. Maybe he can interview himself, and also be behind the camera. “bugs bunny first base, bugs bunny second base, bugs bunny third base, bugs bunny shortstop…..”

      1. Or maybe he can double-dog-dare a first tier-er to debate him on “I’m not on the first tier so I’m doing my own debate” debate. Actually, I’d watch a debate between him and rubio.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.