Election 2016

Rand Paul Livetweets the Democratic Debate

Points out Hillary Clinton's past on criminal justice reform in a way Democrats don't want to.

|

NBC News

The Democratic presidential candidates are having a debate tonight, because what better time for a debate than 9pm on a Sunday night before a federal holiday? Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Martin O'Malley are participating at the Democratic debate, mostly agreeing with each other. Once in a while Clinton, the frontrunner, and Sanders, her primary challenger, argue over an issue like guns or healthcare.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), who skipped the Fox debate Thursday night rather than be relegated to the undercard, is livetweeting the Democratic debate. He was sorely missed on Thursday on issues like police reform and the war on drugs, and is his livetweeting illustrates, he's got something substantive to offer against the Democratic candidates too.

While the Democrats mostly skirted around the root causes for the need criminal justice reform, Paul pointed out that Clinton's been a big supporter of legislation like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. And Paul referred back to the comments he made on the war on drugs at his counter-programming #RandRally event Thursday night when the Democratic candidates tonight similarly declined to tackle the problem with the war on drugs and instead offered suggestions on how they'd run it.

Follow Rand Paul's livetweeting here. Republican Jeb Bush is the only other major presidential candidate livetweeting the debate.

Advertisement

NEXT: Silk Road Creator Ross Ulbricht: 'Mis-Prosecuted and Misunderstood'

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. Bernie keeps getting the soapbox, and is now beating the climate change drum.

    1. That’s book something, chapter X, verse Y; gaia is a jealous god.

  2. Oh boy, asking Bernie about foreign policy…

  3. “The Democratic presidential candidates are having a debate tonight”

    Is that what they call them? how did you find out about it? Strangely there are never any advertisements, or huge shout-outs in the daily papers.

  4. Whoa…Bernie said something I agree with! “Other wealthy countries must contribute more to their defense instead of us.”

    1. Yeah, like CHINA. And fucking Russia, for that matter.

    2. Yeah, but why would they? We’ve always taken care of that. It’s like the 30 year old guy living in his parents’ basement. If you asked him, why would he want to get a job as long as mom and dad are paying for everything? Any call to scale back the U.S. military presence anywhere immediately leads to wailing, so I’ll believe that when I see it.

      1. Any call to scale back the U.S. military presence anywhere immediately leads to wailing, so I’ll believe that when I see it.

        It’s why our politicos need to grow some balls. What are these countries going to do if we withdraw most of our forces? Sanction us?

        1. Why, they’ll turn commie if the government has to spend money on defense and not on free shit!
          De Gaul and Eden convinced Marshall of that, and Ike fell for it too; hence NATO (US military with Brit food).

          1. I thought it was more like the *Italian* military and British food.

            1. You think the ITALIANS are gonna pay for the troops?
              Ha and HA!

              1. The joke on which that comment was based

          2. ^^This.

            People always seem to forget: it was the US that wanted to keep western Europe from going red, not the western Europeans themselves. So, quite rightly (since it was our wish being carried out), we footed the bill.

            The deal was basically this: we were told by their leaders, and our intelligence services believed, that without constant US cash, they (France and Italy) would vote themselves right into the Warsaw pact. Virulent anti-communism is a peculiarly American trait; the average frog or wop either simply didn’t give a damn, or if they thought about it at all, were somewhat more sympathetic to the communist cause than not.

            We desperately didn’t want them to go commie; they themselves didn’t really care either way. So it was incumbent upon us to provide the incentive to see things our way. And that incentive came in the form of shipping crates full of burlap sacks with dollar signs on them.

            1. “…the average frog or wop either simply didn’t give a damn, or if they thought about it at all, were somewhat more sympathetic to the communist cause than not…”

              This is a question I’ve looked at ten ways from Sunday and have never arrived at a solid answer.
              Even Judt in “Post War” makes the point that frog and wop commies were STILL pitching the lure of commie-hood long after the ’56 Hungarian event that made it clear to anyone who ignored the show trials that communism = thuggery. As Judt puts it, ‘centralized planning means centralized murder’.
              Pretty sure it was Camus who was still traveling to eastern Europe in the early ’80s, remarking to (very small) audiences how good they had it, since the US wasn’t importing jeans and Big Macs there; Judt wonders why they didn’t egg him off the stages…
              So, were they really that dumb?
              Bernie says YES!!!!!!!!! YOU BET!!!!!!!!!

              1. My take was that in the minds of most Western-Euros – Soviet (slavic) communism = thuggery

                So just like our current crop of US domestic socialists, they knew that the Right People would know how to do it differently.

                1. That’s an interesting point.

                  “Well of course the untermensch slavs fucked it up.

                  We’ll nail this shit because we have haute couture”

              2. The stories of heavy CIA involvement in Italian elections carried on well into the 80s, supposedly to offset the equal KGB influence.

                Still, even as late as the 80s, what the fuck were so many people still doing being so sympathetic to that, that the KGB could even get a foothold? Why didn’t the Red Brigades die out in the 50s?

                Utopianism, is my go-to answer. It’s a poison that will never die.

              3. Camus died in either the late 50s or early 60s.

                1. ^ Sevo above.

  5. “Anyone else think that #DemDebate halftime show needed a band?”

    Yeah, like the dance band on the Titanic.

  6. Today I was entertained by a lady who opened the door wearing a t-shirt featuring Bernie Sanders riding a unicorn. She asked me what I thought about the shirt it because it was a new purchase.

    Did I respond by saying:

    A.) “Bitch, I’m a libertarian, I ain’t gots time for your socialist ass.”
    B.) “I’ll let you ride me like a unicorn.”
    C.) “Grow up, you fucking moron.”
    D.) “You look really good in it.”

    If you guess the correct answer you win an imaginary version of the t-shirt.

    1. Hopefully “D”.

      How does it compare to the work of Dan Lacey? I think its a little sad they can’t come up with anything new in 7 years. Also, Bernie is old, like a wizard. He wouldn’t ride a unicorn = he’d command them with his magic staff.

      1. I believe it was a version of this shirt. Dan Lacey’s is much better.

        1. So is that… is that supposed to be an earnest shirt? It’s not poking fun at his stupidity?

          1. I think they have the perfect angle. Most would see it for how it shows how stupid he is – another slice of the population would buy it for how much they believe in its truth.

    2. E.) “You’re wearing that ironically and I think I love you”

    3. E.) All of the above.

      1. F) “You look really good in it but I think you without it would be even better”

    4. I’m confused by (B) is she riding you as if you were a unicorn or in the manner in which a unicorn would ride?

      1. I think it’s a pegging reference.

  7. Not a bad idea. I’m certainly unable to watch the actual debate without barfing.

  8. From Rand’s twitter:

    Dr. Rand Paul ?@RandPaul 54m54 minutes ago

    I agree with @MartinOmalley again “What Hillary Clinton just said is not true” They could just put that under her on the screen all night.

    1. Forehead tattoo

  9. regarding hillary…. will this be the first election in US history where much of the country really doesn’t care at all about what the person’s policy views are, and entirely about their political-identity?

    I’d say Obama was that guy, but in fact he really did sell himself on the idea of being “Anti-Iraq” in a way that hillary was not in 2008, therefore it doesn’t work.

    1. This one goes to eleven.

    2. I really, really hope identity politics has reached its ceiling (nadir?) this election cycle. Jesus, this country needs it to.

    3. …well, if you look at what his policies have done to improve Iraq you could say that “anti-Iraq” would have been a correct label.

  10. Wait a second. There’s a debate tonite?

    1. Yeah, it isn’t as if Saturday night is camo enough: “Let’s put it on Sunday night after a couple of playoff games and draw 8 or 10 viewers! ”
      Great idea, Hill!

      1. Just DWS pushing the Coronation button.

      2. Actually – it *is* a great idea for her.

        She has a TERRIBLE stage presence. This way she gets to ‘do a debate’, hardly anyone sees what an arse she is, and the media can just go ahead and report that she ‘won it’ the next day without fear of contradiction.

        1. I’m waiting for the media to start reporting that she “won the debate” before it is even started. It’s like a $20 prostitute feigning to be coy. “Really?”

  11. OK, for those who want to wallow in a lefty rag’s take on the ‘debate’:
    “The Latest: Updates from the Democratic presidential debate”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/sci…..765895.php

    1. Random pull quote:
      “Hillary Clinton says that “every single American should be outraged” by the water crisis in Flint.”
      I really haven’t followed it, but I do know the (R) Guv is asking for aid. And my question is ‘how did it get that way?’
      From Wiki:
      “Late 20th century: Deindustrialization and demographic changes
      Since the late 1960s through the end of the 20th century, Flint has suffered from disinvestment, deindustrialization, depopulation and urban decay, as well as high rates of crime, unemployment and poverty. Initially, this took the form of “white flight” that afflicted many urban industrialized American towns and cities. Given Flint’s role in the automotive industry, this decline was exacerbated by the 1973 oil crisis and the U.S. auto industry’s subsequent loss of market share to imports.
      In the 1980s, the rate of deindustrialization accelerated again with local GM employment falling from a 1978 high of 80,000 to under 8,000 by 2010. Only 10% of the manufacturing work force from its height remains in Flint. Many factors have been blamed, including outsourcing, exporting jobs abroad, moving jobs to non-union facilities, exorbitant overhead, and globalization.”

      I’ma guess typical UAW demolition of jobs, strong pub-sec unions, taxpayers shafted as a result, not money for infrastructure, and the D douchebags screaming about a R governor.
      Do I have it?

      1. You know what would stop ‘white flight’ – exit visas. Leaving an economically depressed part of the country is unpatriotic and racist. They should be forced to stay and fix they own town before being allowed to move somewhere else just to wreck it.

        1. Look, you can’t just stop at having whites get an exit visa to leave. There is also the problem of gentrification, where too many arrive. Visas both ways and let’s throw in any model minorities while we’re at it.

        2. Yeah, it’s not as if they’re from their homes to some place where they would have better opportunities like Americans of all races have done since forever. No, they were doing fine where they were but because they were *racist,* they decided to just get up and move, because they hate anyone who isn’t white.

          1. *moving* from their homes to some place

      2. Pretty much. Though I’m seeing all kids of leftist glee at a small-gov’t, anti-federal, racist, misogynist, homophobic rethugliKKKan having to beg the hated FedGov for some of that deficit printed money he’s supposedly against.

        1. “Though I’m seeing all kids of leftist glee at a small-gov’t, anti-federal, racist, misogynist, homophobic rethugliKKKan having to beg the hated FedGov for some of that deficit printed money he’s supposedly against.”

          Yeah, I caught more than a taste of this on another site last week and I wasn’t about to ‘sign up’ to point out that he’s doing nothing more than asking the union-supported, UUUUGE-gov’t types to please clean up the mess they’ve left.

      3. What I’d like to know is why in hell are they using lead pipes for plumbing? Weren’t the dangers of that recognized, oh, about a hundred years ago?

    2. Holy cow! I just checked the comments; 9 total, and all anti-Ds.
      It looks like, in SF, not a single D-bag could be bothered to comment, which is a pretty strong indicator that they couldn’t be bothered to watch.
      Hill WINS! She’s made herself the contentless, identity candidate who is running on ‘it’s her turn!’

      1. 9 comments, 7 of which were from the same person so only 3 people actually commenting. Lively bunch.

      2. Hill WINS! She’s made herself the contentless, identity candidate who is running on ‘it’s her turn vagina!’

        FTFY

  12. Rand Paul is NOT a major presidential candidate. And seeing no difference between Clinton and Sanders is WHY the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians (Cato). . Independents grow larger by rejecting tribalism, so why would they choose tribal libertarianism? duh
    “NO,” they screech. We’re NON-intervention, PRO-legalization, SUPPORT criminal justice reform, ANTI-racist and PRO equality. (yawn) Yeah, but piss it all away.
    Rand Paul committed Presidential suicide by properly reaching out to civil-libertarian left … who are mostly socially liberal. So he destroyed it all with a mere two words, “tent revivals.”
    Even third-rate ELECTED libertarians know how to build a coalition by defending traditional values WITHOUT pandering to the Christian Taliban. Or, like Gillespie, proclaiming himself “on the right” — which I’d never heard a libertarian claim (right or left) in over 40 years. One reason we have NOTHING to show after 40 years … except a father-son Christofascist cult, seeking a theocracy.
    We spend decades saying that libertarians are NEITHER left nor right, most famously with the World’s Smallest Political Quiz But it can all be pissed away by “tent revivals” and “on the right,” when overall actions show the same.
    Libertarian moments are great for fundraising ? but 91% rejection by our own team is undeniable reality, reported by Cato and a top-ranked pollster.

    1. Oh good, the comments were lacking a certain flavour of screeching ass until your comment, Mike. Well played.

      1. Pompey
        Mike. Well played.

        Thanks. I’ve always had a strong preference for issues of substance, versus vacuous personal attacks devoid of … anything.

        That’s probably why I’ve never been rejected by 91% of libertarians.
        But by 98.2% of goobers.

        1. I’ve always had a strong preference for issues of substance, versus vacuous personal attacks devoid of … anything.

          You lie.

          One reason we have NOTHING to show after 40 years … except a father-son Christofascist cult, seeking a theocracy.

          1. You lie.

            Was that satire, or did you just prove my point with with Absolute Zero substance (aka libertarian political correctness)?.

    2. This guy isn’t for real, right? Does he know what a Theocracy is?

      WTF is the “Christian Taliban”? “Christofascist cult”? I thought we libertarians were against this collectivism stuff…

      Dear Wacko Hihn:

      Please stop smoking that stuff you’ve been smoking. It’s making you retarded.

      1. This guy isn’t for real, right? Does he know what a Theocracy is?

        Seeking to impose religious values through government force — ironically, n a nation founded by people who escaped religious oppression and created a nation with a wall of separation between church and state.

        WTF is the “Christian Taliban”? “Christofascist cult”?

        The Muslim Taliban are fundamentalists seeking to impose a theocracy. Which is a form of facsism promoted by a minority of Christian (mostl) fundamentalists.

        I thought we libertarians were against this collectivism stuff…

        Yes. But we’ve never denied that it exists.

        Please stop smoking that stuff you’ve been smoking. It’s making you retarded.

        I’ve just addressed several simple concepts that you clearly don’t understand.

        1. You’re an epic fucktard who is equating the Muslim Taliban with Christians in the USA. I’m not down with a Theocracy here either, Christian, Hindu, or any other kind. But, you’re a fart lost in a tornado if you think that’s coming here.

          Seriously, stop smoking that shit, it makes you paranoid (and stoopid).

          1. Ship of Theseus
            You’re an epic fucktard who is equating the Muslim Taliban with Christians in the USA. I’m not down with a Theocracy here either, Christian, Hindu, or any other kind. But, you’re a fart lost in a tornado if you think that’s coming here.

            Umm. look again, I equated a MINORITY of Christian fundamentalists with Islam fundamentalists. The common trait is seeking a religious state.

            epic fucktard … fart lost in a tornado … paranoid (and stoopid).

            BUT I CAN READ!!!!

    3. Interesting how “tent revivals” = “pandering to the Christian Taliban [sic].”

      Fuck off, Hinh. I get you hate Christians and even the word “right,” but that does not mean Rand and Ron advocate for a theocracy, you mendacious twat.

    4. Man, I think you might hate Christians even more than Shrike, and that’s saying something.

      1. Interesting how “tent revivals” = “pandering to the Christian Taliban [sic].”

        Was that illiterate or a falsehood? The tent revivals were proposed to promote anti-gay bigotry. And I CLEARLY said the very people Rand reached out for on the left are appalled by that. It’s like you seeking office in a largely black district, and proclaiming loyalty to the KKK? Are you not aware of left-libertarians?

        I get you hate Christians

        Ah, the bullshit war on Christianity.

        and even the word “right,”

        I reside quite firmly on the right (fiscally). Apologies if I’ve offended your political correctness, Here’s my archive of published political writing. Look closely to taxes, healthcare and governance.
        http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

        This summarizes my campaign platform for state Washington Insurance Commissioner, easily the farthest right candidate.
        http://community.seattletimes……ug=4040641

        but that does not mean Rand and Ron advocate for a theocracy, you mendacious twat.

        You distort what I said and where I stand politically. All that’s left to support that conclusion is a potty mouth. Anything else?

      2. DesigNate|
        Man, I think you might hate Christians even more than Shrike,

        It’s a common tactic among the Christian Taliban to believe that all Christians are seeking state power to promote their bigoted agenda. To disagree with THEM is to hate ALL Christians … despite them being a small minority of those Christians.

        Even wackier is the claim that our founders could NEVER have created a “wall of separation” between church and state. Apparently, they presume that all Christians conform to their rules of government, even tracing to the large percentage of people came here to escape religious oppression

        But in George Washington’s final term he negotiated a treaty signed by President Adams after unanimous ratification in the Senate. It includes “… the United States is not, in any way, founded as a Christian nation. ..”

        Treaties carry equal weight as amending the constitution. Why would anyone so thoroughly distort our founders intent with ALL the evidence stacked against them. “They would never have done so because they were God-fearing Christians.”

        From the ratification of our Constitution, clear up to Civil War era … the (un)Holy Inquisition was still committing moral atrocities. On our own soil, the Salem Witchcraft trial. .Did they flee in fear from do much of Europe because they hated Christians, or did they believe the church had lost its way?

  13. “Republican Jeb Bush is the only other major presidential candidate livetweeting the debate.”

    Is his mom following his feed? I hope so. It would be sad if absolutely no one followed him.

    1. Should be roughly the same number following Rand.
      Except to tribalists on both sides

      1. 100% of libertarians reject Michael Hihn.

        1. Double you
          100% of libertarians reject Michael Hihn.

          Who cares, since the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians and accepted by a staggering 5.3% of Americans. (Per Cato Institute).

          Of that 5.3%, only a fraction would support your earlier comment … “You lie” ,,, which nicely illustrated my point. And the only majority that matters is a majority of VOTERS!

          1. Have you ever made a coherent point, or is all the ramblings of a madman?

            1. Ship of Theseus
              Have you ever made a coherent point, or is all the ramblings of a madman?

              Why does Ship of Theseus equate the Cato Institute with an incoherent madman?
              With three posts (so far) of foul-mouth insults and zero substance, is it unreasonable to assume he or she is a stalker?
              And a cyber-bully?

              1. I was going to blame your nonsense on early-onset Alzheimer’s, but apparently it wouldn’t be that early for you.

                Here’s where you need help, my friend: You are going to influence exactly 0 people with your blithering nonsense about a Christofascist cult or a Theocracy.

                What exactly is your point that the Libertarian label is rarely adopted? WHO CARES? It isn’t about the label, it’s about the idea(s). If you could stick to making a cogent point without rambling, without unnecessary bolding and waving your hands like a wild-eyed apocalyptic lunatic, maybe I could have an intelligent discussion with you.

                1. This from the trashmouth who equates Cato with an “incoherent madman”. His first attack is trashmouth AGGRESSION, and doesn’t know what theocracy means! Here:

                  https://reason.com/blog/2016/01…..nt_5837675

                  Ship of Theseus
                  I was going to blame your nonsense on early-onset Alzheimer’s,…

                  (yawn) Typical punk

                  your blithering nonsense about a Christofascist cult or a Theocracy.

                  (lol) I defined the terms and provided a supported argument vs your repeated foulmouth aggression … ..

                  What exactly is your point that the Libertarian label is rarely adopted?

                  (third time: THE LIBERTARIAN LABEL IS REJECTED BY 91% OF LIBERTARIANS. (Cato) You’re pissed off at Cato’s survey, so you attack the messenger, So we add Gestapo to Theocracy… .Now the trophy of the month!

                  It isn’t about the label, it’s about the idea(s).

                  ARGH THAT’S MY POINT! 91% of libertarians (defined as ideas) reject the libertarian label. Get it YET?

                  If you could stick to making a cogent point without rambling … unnecessary bolding … waving your hands like a wild-eyed apocalyptic lunatic,

                  (snicker) It’s been YOU humliliaitng yourself … as I defend myself from REPEATED aggression. I use bolding only in self defense, for maximum ridicule of your attacks

                  1. Oh good, you’ve gone ahead and bolded everything just to prove my point.

                    Man, I don’t know what your problem is. And no, I don’t get your point. Libertarians reject the libertarian label… soooo? Libertarianism is wrong? The label is meaningless? People are weird?

                    Can you try to explain what this has to do with…anything?

  14. It’s sort of sad and cute that you called Jeb! a “major” candidate.

  15. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    http://www.Jobstribune.com

  16. Sometimes man you jsut gotta roll with the punches.

    http://www.Full-VPN.tk

  17. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    http://www.Jobstribune.com

  18. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    http://www.Jobstribune.com

  19. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://www.onlinecash9.com

  20. “My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  21. “My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.