- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/20/17 at 10:56 am to RogerTheShrubber
What's the difference between true conservative grandstanding and GOPe backstabbing?
Is one of them any better?
Is one of them any better?
Posted on 10/20/17 at 10:56 am to Sentrius
quote:
See, this holier than thou bullshite is what drove me away from libertarians and Never Trumpers.
Nah. You were either ideologically there or not. If you really think holier than thou attitudes are bad, you would hate Trump and his nationalist agenda.
I think formerly sane people got excited about the movement and lost sight of what they once held dear.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 10:58 am to Sentrius
quote:
What's the difference between true conservative grandstanding and GOPe backstabbing?
one is based on values and the other is based on politics?
quote:
Is one of them any better?
yes
and I get it, part of Rand's virtue signaling is playing politics, but it isn't based purely in politics
Posted on 10/20/17 at 11:01 am to Sentrius
quote:
What's the difference between true conservative grandstanding and GOPe backstabbing?
Reasoning.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 11:26 am to RogerTheShrubber
"Would you prefer Paul give up his principles to "beat the Democrats?"
No, of course not, but I do ask that a senator operating in a deliberative body recognize political realities and vote for the better/best of the options that are actually available. I do not believe that Paul has done this, opting instead for grandstanding votes that help him maintain his ideological purity while saddling Americans with a retained Democratic agenda despite GOP control of both houses of Congress.
No, of course not, but I do ask that a senator operating in a deliberative body recognize political realities and vote for the better/best of the options that are actually available. I do not believe that Paul has done this, opting instead for grandstanding votes that help him maintain his ideological purity while saddling Americans with a retained Democratic agenda despite GOP control of both houses of Congress.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 11:29 am to N.O. via West-Cal
He's always the only "not guilty" vote by the jury a little too often for me.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 11:42 am to doubleb
quote:Right. Voting against the establishment means he's for the establishment. Your reasoning is quite astute.
And who wins in the end? The establishment, just as they planned it.
So Rand Paul helped the establishment by voting NO, right?
quote:That's like saying that you're going to die, so what's the point of living.
Rand Paul is no better than John McCain. Think about that because its true. You nay agree with Paul's philosophy and not McCain's but in the end the results are the same.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 11:46 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
No, of course not, but I do ask that a senator operating in a deliberative body recognize political realities and vote for the better/best of the options that are actually available.
I would say passing on bad legislation and waiting on better legislation is doing just that.
quote:
I do not believe that Paul has done this, opting instead for grandstanding votes that help him maintain his ideological purity while saddling Americans with a retained Democratic agenda despite GOP control of both houses of Congress.
Paul isn't being elected to represent the "GOPe" wing of the party or Democrat Lite, which is what Trump and his ilk have morphed into.
If Trump can't get past a Senator or two, or get them on board, he's doing a terrible job of pushing legislation and leading.
There really isn't a conservative establishment anymore.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 11:47 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Nah. You were either ideologically there or not. If you really think holier than thou attitudes are bad, you would hate Trump and his nationalist agenda.
How stupid. Neither Trump, anyone in his Administration, nor any of his supporters have ever done anything to lead anyone to believe they think they are holier than anyone else.
Putting your country's needs above others doesn't mean you think you are better than anyone else. I don't think my kids are better than your kids, but I damn sure would take care of them and their needs before your children's , as I would expect you would do in regards to YOUR kids.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 12:07 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
How stupid. Neither Trump, anyone in his Administration, nor any of his supporters have ever done anything to lead anyone to believe they think they are holier than anyone else.
Yeah, the anti Muslim sentiment is based on what?
quote:
Putting your country's needs above others doesn't mean you think you are better than anyone else. I don't think my kids are better than your kids, but I damn sure would take care of them and their needs before your children's , as I would expect you would do in regards to YOUR kids.
Protectionist trade policy isn't "America first." In fact, it's the opposite. "America First" is empty rhetoric like "Hope and Change."
Neither is his foreign policy, which is just an extension of the Clinton/Bush/Obama crap.
Putting the USA first is great, but his policies do not do that. Not currently. This is precisely why you need someone like Rand to help hold his feet to the fire on foreign policy, in particular.
And Health care
And Tax reform..
Posted on 10/20/17 at 1:30 pm to PrimeTime Money
All of these Republicans campaigned as conservatives who would repeal and replace Ocare, reform the tax code, and decrease government spending.
When they break those campaign promises, this board rightly calls them out and celebrates Bannon threatening their reelection.
When Rand follows through on his campaign promises, you want to call him out too?
Stand for something.
When they break those campaign promises, this board rightly calls them out and celebrates Bannon threatening their reelection.
When Rand follows through on his campaign promises, you want to call him out too?
Stand for something.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 1:35 pm to SCLibertarian
"I applaud him for being the one guy to stand up for spending sanity while every other Senator spends us into oblivion and kicks the can down the road."
But here's were I don't get this point of view: Paul hasn't done a thing to stop spending! Instead, the spendthrift policies remain, in part, because of his votes against the admittedly imperfect GOP bills.
But here's were I don't get this point of view: Paul hasn't done a thing to stop spending! Instead, the spendthrift policies remain, in part, because of his votes against the admittedly imperfect GOP bills.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 1:36 pm to Tiger4Liberty
quote:
All of these Republicans campaigned as conservatives who would repeal and replace Ocare, reform the tax code, and decrease government spending.
When they break those campaign promises, this board rightly calls them out and celebrates Bannon threatening their reelection.
When Rand follows through on his campaign promises, you want to call him out too?
Yep! It's bizarre how some of these folks have morphed.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 1:38 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Paul hasn't done a thing to stop spending!
He's voting against spending increases and you folks are still criticizing.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 1:51 pm to Lsupimp
"Roger - do you understand my argument ? Or do you dismiss me as an “ Authoritarian Progressive “ or “Trumpbot “ ? Just curious about your opinion since I am so in tune with you on things."
I'm curious about this, too, both from Roger and just in general. I am amazed that the "attaboy Rand" crowd doesn't even seem to understand the argument you, I, and others are making. Here's a question to ponder: how "pure" would a budget bill or ADA repeal/replace bill have to be for it to be desirable? As I understand the pro-Rand posts in this thread, any current law, no matter how bad, is preferable to any proposed law that isn't "pure" even if the impure law would represent an improvement. I find that bizarre.
I'm curious about this, too, both from Roger and just in general. I am amazed that the "attaboy Rand" crowd doesn't even seem to understand the argument you, I, and others are making. Here's a question to ponder: how "pure" would a budget bill or ADA repeal/replace bill have to be for it to be desirable? As I understand the pro-Rand posts in this thread, any current law, no matter how bad, is preferable to any proposed law that isn't "pure" even if the impure law would represent an improvement. I find that bizarre.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 1:56 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
As I understand the pro-Rand posts in this thread, any current law, no matter how bad, is preferable to any proposed law that isn't "pure" even if the impure law would represent an improvement. I find that bizarre.
Why vote for a bill that doesn't do much to change the existing law when you can hold out and get something better?
There aren't just two sides to everything. Lets be honest here, Trump promised a lot of shite running for office relating to repealing and replacing, and all we got from the Republican side was a Obamacare lite.
Really seems like many of you are happy as long as the existing law is changed, even slightly. I'm not. Both Rand and Trump campaigned on overturning this travesty and installing something better. Only one of those seems to really give a shite.
You folks blast the "GOPe" for selling out, yet blast Rand for NOT selling out? That's just ridiculous.
This post was edited on 10/20/17 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 10/20/17 at 1:57 pm to RogerTheShrubber
"He's voting against spending increases and you folks are still criticizing."
Yes, because he's not doing anything of consequence. Just saying no is fine when you're the opposition party, but Paul has utterly failed at governing in the here and now.
Yes, because he's not doing anything of consequence. Just saying no is fine when you're the opposition party, but Paul has utterly failed at governing in the here and now.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 2:03 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
because he's not doing anything of consequence.
Paul introduces bill...
Paul unvelis health care replacement....
quote:
The bills named below were either sponsored or co-sponsored by Rand Paul. A bill is generally proposed within the appropriate committee. Some bills make it out of committee and are voted on the floor of the House or Senate. A bill can become law either through the vote process or being sent directly to the President. Most bills are proposed by the representative and never leave the committee floor.
The table below shows the number of bills sponsored and cosponsored by this representative for the session of Congress shown. Click the number to see a list of the bills.
Session
Sponsored
Co-sponsored
112 31 92
If others would "do nothing of consequence" as Paul has done, shite would happen.
Posted on 10/20/17 at 2:08 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
I don't think Rand is an all or nothing guy as you suggest.
But if a bill is a bad bill, regardless of which team proposes it, he calls a spade a spade.
I understand your argument and agree that from Leader McConnell's or President Trump's position, passing something is often a much needed win on the political scoreboard.
Rand isn't in their position. Admittedly, he's not a team player. But your ire is misdirected. Direct your anger at the less ideologically pure members of the team.
Imagine a congress with more Rand types, not fewer. Our country would be way better off.
But if a bill is a bad bill, regardless of which team proposes it, he calls a spade a spade.
I understand your argument and agree that from Leader McConnell's or President Trump's position, passing something is often a much needed win on the political scoreboard.
Rand isn't in their position. Admittedly, he's not a team player. But your ire is misdirected. Direct your anger at the less ideologically pure members of the team.
Imagine a congress with more Rand types, not fewer. Our country would be way better off.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News