12 votes

Would Rand Sue the Govt. if Mitt were Prez?

As we all know Ron Paul was this amazing exception who always stuck to principle regardless of political climate. On the other hand Rand, regardless of what you think of his overall character, has disappointed us all with his neocon pandering rhetoric.

But regardless of the disappointments he's also done many things that we can all agree is fantastic, filibustering and arguing for the liberty movement on many occasions. What I'm wondering is how much of the stuff he does that we like do you think he's doing only because it's safe to attack Obama? I feel like if Mitt were in office he may be playing a different tune.

Thoughts?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand would be Hillary's nightmare

On logic and record Rand can utterly eviscerate Hillary.

All Hillary really has going for her are those who are so "Democratic" and short-sighted-feminist that they vote on command or on prejudice ... not on anything else.

There are, sadly, a lot of those ... which is why the US is imploding.

But I believe the Republican base PLUS the Independent vote (where I believe most of the thinking and moral folks in this country are currently hanging out) will support Rand if he continues to manuver through and around land mines.

And, if so, I think he can win against the "don't confuse me with the facts or intelligent argument" Hillary zombies.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

That so many believe he wouldn't is why he can

this should be kind of obvious ... except for the dim, the naive, and the Democratic-party trolls....

If you seriously don't think the Democrats are concerned about Rand, and what happens here on this site (even though officially declared to not be a rand site) you need a check up from the neck up.

For me the most hopeful thing of all is that so many here and elsewhere purportedly DON'T think Rand is a next generation of Ron.

MOST republicans would reject Rand out of hand if they believed he was.

But, instead, most Republicans seem pretty open to Rand. If that continues, and with Christie the pork-man with no will power over his own gluttony imploding on his own accord, Rand has a real chance to win the Republican nomination.

If he can carry the Republican base, not losing many as rMoney lost many, he has an excellent chance of winning.

It's hard for me to believe there are so many real short sighted dim or naive Ron Paul supporters out there. So I have to think we have more than a few trolls on board.

Meantime...I'm glad Rand is managing to keep enough people guessing. Notably his father doesn't appear to be guessing. And those really who respected Ron ought to respect his opinion of whether his son has integrity.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

Anti-Rand posts aren't helping anyone

If you have a candidate that would be better than Rand, I would rather see that post. Just because Rand is not a clone of Ron doesn't mean we wouldn't be a good POTUS.

Ron Paul will vote for Rand when the time comes, and I will too. Who else is there, except Hillary and a bunch of Neo-cons like Jeb Bush.

Maybe Jeb Bush, or Chris Cristie would be a better match for Hillary to win.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

He wouldn't need to

Most likely Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich or perhaps Linda Sanchez would step up.

There are people on the left who are also not happy about the NSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.

SteveMT's picture

You ask: does political expediency trump the Constitution?

For Ron Paul, the answer would be an emphatic 'hell no' and here is my voting record to prove it. For anyone else, there would be a slight hesitation before answering then a lie would follow.

Ron Paul never sued GW Bush

just sayin'

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

It's clear that Rands clinics

It's clear that Rands clinics say no while Rands supporters say yes. To be expected. What's your point?

Michael Nystrom's picture

The point is that everyone sees what they want to see

http://www.dailypaul.com/280516/everyone-sees-what-they-want...

Can we get beyond that? If everyone is trapped in emotion, using their own filters to color their own opinion, how will we ever truly be able to trust our opinions?

If we can't understand how we form our own opinions, then we'll never know ourselves.

And if we never know ourselves, then we'll never know the truth about anything. We'll only forever see the world as we want to see it.

I don't know what the OP's point was, but that is my point.

I wouldn't call myself a critic or a supporter, but a realist. I wore the rose colored glasses for Ron Paul 2008/12.

Personally I'd like to take a clearer look this time. I think that is a little more interesting, not to mention a little more honest.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.
Michael Nystrom's picture

LOL! Of course not!

Rand is a political animal. Party comes first. Isn't that clear enough?

What credible politician would ever sue the president of his own party.

Sue the President of your opponent's party = Political bonanza.
Sue the President of your own party = Political suicide.

The one thing everyone here everyone seems to agree on is that Rand is "playing the game."

Well, there are rules to the game. Ronald Reagan had the "11th Commandment" - don't speak ill of members of your own party. You certainly don't sue him!

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

So....

If Ron Paul "always stuck to principle", why isn't he bashing his son as the people are here? I have heard him say Rand is doing great. Is he lying, or playing the game?

utterly useless

and pointless speculation.

Yes.

Yes.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

I rather doubt it. He WOULD

I rather doubt it. He WOULD try to fight Mitt on this, but not at the expense of losing support of the GOP. He's trying to win them over, but you don't win over a party by suing them. And that's how the GOP would have seen it if Rand had tried to sue Mitt.

What Rand would do under a Republican president, is try to keep a low profile, carefully build up his case and wait for others to make a mistake. That's how Rand has been able to be succesful up to this point.

People often voted against Rand's policies, only for Rand to turn out right in the end. Notice how people tend to be quiet when Rand talks in interviews after the things he warned against happened (NSA, IRS, etc). Meanwhile, the GOP look like idiots by voting against the stuff that would have prevented these things in the first place. This is basically the way how Rand has been able to increase his sphere of influence. He didn't do it by being overly aggressive.

But Rand is still fortunate that Mitt didn't win. He can now move more freely. Rand would only be able to sue Mitt under specific circumstances (when the public is absolutely pissed and heads are starting to roll).

Yes

.

You mean the guy he endorsed?

What do YOU think?

Oh sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the circlejerk. Carry on.

edit: This isn't necessarily an attack on Rand, just pointing out that just because he (or anyone else) says something, doesn't mean they'll actually follow through.

A signature used to be here!

C'mon man, don't insert too

C'mon man, don't insert too much logic here at the Daily Rand. Some people here are hooked on the opiate of Rand's hope and change. When he sells out, he is just being strategic is all.

Incidentally, Obama's supports believe the same thing about him, he is just biding his time before he delivers the rainbows, lollipops, and puppies.

Daily Rand?

that's just rude.

while I can commiserate about tactics and strategy.

your post was just a negative attack piece.

*ponders*

Would he want to? Hell yes.
Would he consider it worth the political cost? IDK
There are waaay to many what if factors to consider.
I do lean towards yes though.

"You only live free if your willing to die free."

answer to first question:

Exactly. It's so hard to get a serious debate going on a critic

al time in history, though the endeavor goes to the discovery channel.

Why pandas? Why now?

Rand stated the issue “transcended partisanship”

when he criticized Romney for the latter’s “bellicose” stance in the ME including intervening in Syria. He did that shortly after Romney delivered his aggressive foreign policy speech thus wasting no time in drawing a distinct difference between his foreign policy position vs. Romney’s stance. He said, “No president, Republican or Democrat has the unilateral power to take our nation to war without the authority of the legislature.” He also chided Romney for criticizing Obama’s seeking to cut a bloated Defense Department.

Rand also blasted Dick Cheney for criticizing his stance on NSA, “What I would ask is who did they fire after 9/11?” Paul asked. “Not one person was fired.” “It wasn’t that they couldn’t get a warrant, nobody asked for a warrant,” Paul added. “To me, that was really, really bad intelligence – really bad police work – and, really, someone should have been removed from office for that.”

Rand’s transcending partisanship statement with his consistent criticism of the establishment’s stances convinces me he would indeed sue the government under a Romney administration.

www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/10/rand-paul-rebukes-romney-...

www.iroots.org/2013/06/18/rand-paul-blasts-dick-cheney/

fireant's picture

I heard him on the radio say he would even if a pub was

in the White House.
I know that doesn't mean he "would", but what if questions are what if. The principle is big enough, and RP is a man of principle, so I think he would. After all, he hasn't exactly been tippy-toeing with the pubs as it is.

Undo what Wilson did

Would Rand Sue the Govt. if Mitt were Prez?

Yes.

God forgives always. Man forgives sometimes. But Nature never forgives.

The Real Question Is:

...."How much wood can a woodchuck chuck,
if a woodchuck could chuck wood?".................

Is that relative enough? LOL!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Hell yeah

but a woodchuck can chuck wood....

would the tooth fairy

leave money under your pillow if you were an elephant?

Can a Lion Beat a Tiger...

...in a fight?
And would the winner eat the loser?

And can a rhino beat a hippopotamus?...and can a.......

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

I know u were not seeking an answer but :D

Although a lion CAN the fight normally goes to tiger vs lion or bear.
If they are hungry.. yes.

Now rhino hippo I can not claim knowing but the in water answer is a no brainer. On shore **shrugs shoulders** But hippos are supposed to be more aggressive.

"You only live free if your willing to die free."

Romney didn't become President

because of the R3volution and the Tea Party. Rand Paul wouldn't have become Senator without the R3voution and the Tea Party. Therefore, a President Romney and a Senator Paul could never exist at the same time in this universe.

So to answer your question, would Rand Paul have sued the government if Mitt were President? Yes, he would have sued as a private citizen member to a class action suit.

This ^^^

This ^^^