re: Sen. Rand Paul Says He’s ‘50/50’ on 2028 Presidential Run

Don't waste your time Rand. Stay in your cuck chair.

quote:

---

He’s too Conservative for you, huh?

---

Just because he votes against spending doesn’t mean he’s actually fixing the problem. That’s the problem with guys like him, he will vote no and say oh well.

Moving to Kentucky in the next 12-18 months. Can't wait to vote against him.

Too bad, I like to tell him his odds of winning nomination. ??

Senator Rand Paul has said he is “50/50” on the idea of running for president in 2028.

In an interview with CBS host Robert Costa that will air this Sunday, Paul was asked about his feelings on the Trump administration and the current direction of the Republican Party.

He explained:

quote:

---

There used to really be a free market/Libertarian wing of the party, and now there’s not much left.

In fact, on many days it’s me in the Senate, the only one left for free trade.

But I think there still is a desire among business for it, and it may make the so-called Libertarian vote, which might not be big enough to ever win anything, if you combine that with the Chamber of the Commerce and the traditional business community that doesn’t like protectionism, there may be a force out there for a different direction from the party other than being continued to be led by populism.

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

What is libertarian defined as exactly...no thanks.

Rand would be a terrible foreign policy president. Every belligerent country in the world would know that they could mess with us and Rand wouldn't do anything about it.

He also would create terrible trade deals by insisting on free trade instead of fair trade.

A Rand presidency would make us weaker on the global stage.

He can't even get a single amendment removed from a bill as a senior senator. How's he going to get anything done with congress? He wouldn't be creative like Trump, either. If he was shut down on something his voters wanted, he wouldn't find a different way to get it done.

That would be perfect for his supporters, though, because they think talking about problems without actually implementing a solution is the way a politician should be.

Cant wait for all the polo wearing ex frat bros to come out for their once every 4 year tour to tell us all how he's the best and we know nothing

This board is so dumb sometimes it scares me.

Even without looking at the link so that you even know what the hell you're commenting on, since you damn sure can't trust about 80% of the people creating the titles of these threads (and this one is no exception), it should be obvious that Rand Paul at this point in the game has no chance to become president, and if he's talking about running at all, he's talking about running for the purpose of pulling the party back toward conservatism instead of the mixed bag half-a-leftist policy trends that populism has wrought.

And sure enough, click the link and that's exactly the context, with one important detail. He wasn't even talking about running. The journalist said at the very end of the article, "Well, that sounds like campaign talk," or something of that nature.

So his 50/50 campaign musing wasn't even anything other than a throwaway line while bantering with the guy interviewing him.

And there's a moron here upthread saying he'd be better off running for the Democrats (with over a dozen upvotes) and others who laugh at the obviously true statement that he's way more conservative than most of the posters here.

If you like populism and endorsing 1/3 to 1/2 of an agenda that are leftist ideas, that's fine. But have y'all become so stupid that you no longer understand that that is the case?

Conservatism does not mean opposing Democrats. It's a political philosophy with a set of foundational principles and a long history of applications. It's not whatever you want it to mean; it has it's own objective definition. Reasonable people may disagree on what minor details may or may not constitute conservatism, but it's not reasonable to claim that it means things like the government buying into private corporations or routinely disregarding the Constitution or consistently engaging in massive government spending or the government picking winners and losers in the tax code.

Paul is far too conservative to win, and he knows that. If he runs at all, it will be to attempt to pull the party back from collectivist leftism in the way the Bernie Sanders pushed the Democratic Party farther in that direction the two campaign cycles he ran in.

Rand over here wanting to make a Bernie play and just collect cash from his run

Rand Paul is just another establishment politician with a predominantly libertarian constituency.