• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

BREAKING: Rand Paul chokes on freedom

Status
Not open for further replies.
Two Words said:
This is something that I am unaware of.
Click to expand...

Shit is crazy . Part of the reason why Haiti had a dictatorship for 30 years is because the CIA didn't like the liberal, democratically elected president because it looked too much like "communism". So we got a dictator instead.

This happened in a lot of other countries as well, unfortunately.
 
Damaniel said:
If your policy position is so socially abhorrent that putting it on camera is a political liability, then perhaps a rethink of said policy is in order?

This is the problem with Republicans in general - they hold universally repugnant and abhorrent social positions, then lack the balls to articulate them anywhere where they might actually get scrutiny. There's a reason the GOP continually finds themselves shoved ever closer to the dustbin of irrelevance.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the right position is much harder to explain than emotional knee jerk appeals. Hey look here is an intelligent nice young lady how could you possibly tell her that she shouldn't be given de facto citizenship. Well there is all sorts of problems concerning the rule of law, national sovereignty, etc. I probably would have sat her down and had a conversation with her like I do with any friend but I don't have a media watching me ready to pounce on one out of place word and ruin my career.

Even here on GAF we have poster after poster essentially espousing the policy that if you step foot on US soil you get de facto citizenship and characterizing other views as racist. They might not claim to hold that point of view but close examination of what they post that is essentially what they think.

Here we are discussing rand Paul getting up out of his chair and then people wondering why he didn't want to talk to this lady on camera lol.

This whole issue has become a political pissing match. The democrats want amnesty because they want votes and they know if they can import enough voters to make Texas blue the Republicans will never have a president again and the Republicans are confused because their chamber commerce buddies love cheap labor under the table but most of their constituents know amnesty os bad policy so they can't be overt about it without getting voted out.

The most obvious first step is to secure the border but nobody wants to talk about that.
 
Ol No Bones said:
Sometimes the right position is much harder to explain than emotional knee jerk appeals
Click to expand...

How are these arguments not an emotional appeal?

Ol No Bones said:
Hey look here is an intelligent nice young lady how could you possibly tell her that she shouldn't be given de facto citizenship. Well there is all sorts of problems concerning the rule of law, national sovereignty, etc. I probably would have sat her down and had a conversation with her like I do with any friend but I don't have a media watching me ready to pounce on one out of place word and ruin my career.

Even here on GAF we have poster after poster essentially espousing the policy that if you step foot on US soil you get de facto citizenship and characterizing other views as racist. They might not claim to hold that point of view but close examination of what they post that is essentially what they think.

This whole issue has become a political pissing match. The democrats want amnesty because they want votes and they know if they can import enough voters to make Texas blue the Republicans will never have a president again and the Republicans are confused because their chamber commerce buddies love cheap labor under the table but most of their constituents know amnesty os bad policy so they can't be overt about it without getting voted out.
Click to expand...
 
140.85 said:
I honestly can't hold it against Paul if he left for the reason the author is projecting. Politics is war and it's tough to differentiate between taxpayers that have real concerns and ideologues who want to ambush you in the hope of getting something on film they can use against you. When it doubt, don't say shit and remove yourself from the situation.
Click to expand...

No, politics is NOT war. The point of politics is to implement changes at a societal level. The different parties, the debates, the ideological dispiraties and legislative compromises, these are all mere clashing of views on the paths society should walk down.

If you view politics as war, if you view it from the perspective that everything the "other side(s)" is/are doing is wrong, and your side has to take the opposite stance by default, you're doing it wrong. This isn't a sport. It's not about winning. It's about understanding each other, exchanging ideas, and moving forward together.
 
Ol No Bones said:
Sometimes the right position is much harder to explain than emotional knee jerk appeals. Hey look here is an intelligent nice young lady how could you possibly tell her that she shouldn't be given de facto citizenship. Well there is all sorts of problems concerning the rule of law, national sovereignty, etc. I probably would have sat her down and had a conversation with her like I do with any friend but I don't have a media watching me ready to pounce on one out of place word and ruin my career.

Even here on GAF we have poster after poster essentially espousing the policy that if you step foot on US soil you get de facto citizenship and characterizing other views as racist. They might not claim to hold that point of view but close examination of what they post that is essentially what they think.

Here we are discussing rand Paul getting up out of his chair and then people wondering why he didn't want to talk to this lady on camera lol.

This whole issue has become a political pissing match. The democrats want amnesty because they want votes and they know if they can import enough voters to make Texas blue the Republicans will never have a president again and the Republicans are confused because their chamber commerce buddies love cheap labor under the table but most of their constituents know amnesty os bad policy so they can't be overt about it without getting voted out.

The most obvious first step is to secure the border but nobody wants to talk about that.
Click to expand...
You're full of shit.

Republicans get embarrassed when they discuss immigration because their policies are myopic, uninformed, racist, and embarrassing. It is not our softball media waving a magic wand and making their words sound more idiotic.

And you tried to paint GAF falsely to claim that rational opinions are under assault. The truth is that GAF has a majorly pro-immigration stance that is made up of mostly reasonable positions and you'll have to do the hard work of disproving them with facts and convincing argument), rather than falling on your face in your attempt to write them off as something else. ("essentially", lmao)
 
LaserBuddha said:
You're full of shit.

Republicans get embarrassed when they discuss immigration because their policies are myopic, uninformed, racist, and embarrassing. It is not our softball media waving a magic wand and making their words sound more idiotic.

Just like you were embarrassed just now when you tried to paint GAF falsely to claim that rational opinions are under assault. The truth is that GAF has a majorly pro-immigration stance that is made up of mostly reasonable positions and you'll have to do the hard work of disproving them with facts and convincing arguments rather than falling on your face in your attempt to right them off.
Click to expand...
Yes GAF has a pro illegal immigration stance no doubt.
 
FYI, I am fortunate legal immigrant to this country. I was naturalized and have had full citizenship for more than 30 years.

Anyway, I again get the sense some of poligaf has no clue about how bad the politics for amnesty have become. Immigration stunts like this certainly aren't helping the cause. Support for higher levels of immigration is starting to go down again and was never anywhere near support for lower levels.

wy1gcnhlkeepmhdtxsg7aa.png


Furthermore, most people think policy has caused the crisis.
immigration4a.jpg
Click to expand...

And, ridiculous majority want them out of the US.
immigration6a.jpg
Click to expand...
When Hillary is saying these kids have to be sent home, you know the general public is fed up. And remember, this is without Obama giving press unrestricted access to the shelters and centers where this disaster is taking place.
 
Ol No Bones said:
Yes GAF has a pro illegal immigration stance no doubt.
Click to expand...

yes, because our positions are reasonable and we aren't racist.

please tell me why people shouldn't be given amnesty so we can manually deconstruct your argument.

televator said:
So a person (A real live person. Not a corporation.) from some sort of constituency that will be affected by the policies pushed by certain politicians wants to go speak (With actual words as one does in human speech. Not money.) is now considered baiting?
Click to expand...

"you no lobby, we no care" - gop minority outreach
 
Bodacious said:
You're just mad he didn't take the bait.
Click to expand...

So a person (A real live person. Not a corporation.), from some sort of constituency that will be affected by the policies pushed by certain politicians that wants to go speak to some of these politicians (With actual words as one does in human speech. Not money.), is now considered baiting?
 
jon bones said:
yes, because our positions are reasonable and we aren't racist.

please tell me why people shouldn't be given amnesty so we can manually deconstruct your argument.
Click to expand...
I don't support open borders. I think that whatever country is in question should be the body that determines how many and who they allow in at any given point. I would actually not be so against open borders were it not for the vast welfare state in the US.
 
Ol No Bones said:
I don't support open borders. I think that whatever country is in question should be the body that determines how many and who they allow in at any given point. I would actually not be so against open borders were it not for the vast welfare state in the US.
Click to expand...
Receipts. Now.
 
Ol No Bones said:
I don't support open borders. I think that whatever country is in question should be the body that determines how many and who they allow in at any given point. I would actually not be so against open borders were it not for the vast welfare state in the US.
Click to expand...

wut.

In Texas, which alone has more than 8% of the country's population, along with 4 other states, the income cutoff for Medicaid eligibility is under $5000. That's for a 3 person family.

33 States in the country have the cutoff point below the federal poverty line ($19,530), and more than half of those have the cutoff point below half of that.

That's right - In 2/3rds of the states, you can be below the federal poverty line and still be ineligible for Medicaid assistance because you make too much money. In 1/3rd of the states, you can be below HALF of the poverty line and still be ineligible for Medicaid assistance because you make too much money. And in 10% of the states, including Texas, you can make less than $5,000 per year, and you would be ineligible for Medicaid because you make too much money. These income levels are for 3 person families, by the way.

We don't have a welfare state. Most of the country just kicks people to the curb.
 
Two Words said:
I believe politicians have an obligation to answer to their constituents. Two things though.

1. Those two are not his constituents as illegal immigrants, so you can't really argue that he's failing to fulfill his role if he chooses to not have that discussion.

2. I don't believe that means constituents get to control when and where that discussion is had. It's unrealistic to expect a politician to stop what they are doing under the obligation of answering to every single one of a constituent's demands.
Click to expand...

You're missing my point, which is that that video takes place at a fundraiser hosted by Rand Paul. Sitting and talking to people who have come to see him is the explicit thing he's engaged in doing. It's not blindsiding somebody to come to an event they've announced and invited people to in order to ask them questions. That's an absurd characterization of the situation.

If Rand Paul doesn't want people coming up to him to ask him questions, he should stop hosting public events.
 
Ol No Bones said:
I don't support open borders. I think that whatever country is in question should be the body that determines how many and who they allow in at any given point. I would actually not be so against open borders were it not for the vast welfare state in the US.
Click to expand...

Wait are they coming here to live off of our "vast welfare state" or are they coming here to take our jerbs? I'm confused.
 
GaimeGuy said:
No, politics is NOT war. The point of politics is to implement changes at a societal level. The different parties, the debates, the ideological dispiraties and legislative compromises, these are all mere clashing of views on the paths society should walk down.

If you view politics as war, if you view it from the perspective that everything the "other side(s)" is/are doing is wrong, and your side has to take the opposite stance by default, you're doing it wrong. This isn't a sport. It's not about winning. It's about understanding each other, exchanging ideas, and moving forward together.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the people in it. :(
 
Fucking hilarious. The only thing better than watching that ideologically bankrupt buffoon waddle off, diaper swinging in the wind behind him is the bobble heads scrambling to mop up and excuse the totally rational fear of unscripted debate looming on the horizon.

But hay this is America, one should have the freedumb to invoke and evoke hatred for the most vulnerable and enjoy a meal without some pinko pedant splitting hairs over shit like their life experience.
 
Seeing Rand flee like that is the absolute best. That representative was being condescending as fuck too.

"You're very good at English."

If this dumbass knew what a DREAMer was he'd know that more than likely that woman's English is far, far better than her Spanish. Many can barely speak Spanish as it is.

I like how she cut him off at the end when she had enough of his BS though.
 
Azula said:
Thanks for the reply. So why is campaigning for this bigot? Even if it's something he believes in, doesn't it offer too much risk? I mean if it's to the point that he has to run away when someone wants to ask this guy a question, just seems kind of crazy to be out in public campaigning for someone he think is that much of a liability to his presidential run.
Click to expand...
Rand Paul is running for president in 2016. The first primary (caucus) is in Iowa, and Steve King is an Iowan representative. Jockeying for endorsements.
 
I stopped watching after that fuckface King said that the girl spoke good English.

Can you be anymore bigoted and condescending?
 
Azula said:
Thanks for the reply. So why is campaigning for this bigot? Even if it's something he believes in, doesn't it offer too much risk? I mean if it's to the point that he has to run away when someone wants to ask this guy a question, just seems kind of crazy to be out in public campaigning for someone he think is that much of a liability to his presidential run.
Click to expand...

Its politics basically. Its always good to be able call in favors when you need it even if you think the guy is a douche.

OT: Goddamn that was hilarious. Thanks for the post OP. I needed a good laugh.
 
I don't see the issue. The woman was talking to King, not Rand. Have you never dined in a group setting and gotten up when two other people start getting into it? That's what most sensible people would do. It's the old "this is an A and B conversation, so C you way out of here" scenario.

Put on the spot, Rand was probably thinking that this is some sort of political ambush trying to create a gotcha moment. A politician does not have to dignify such underhanded tactics with a response. He's made his positions clear and opened himself up to debate from critics in the past.

This thread reeks of "I don't like conservatives, so I'm trying to see an embarrassing moment here when there really isn't one". Grow up, OP.
 
Ol No Bones said:
I don't support open borders. I think that whatever country is in question should be the body that determines how many and who they allow in at any given point. I would actually not be so against open borders were it not for the vast welfare state in the US.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
JinjoUnchained said:
I don't see the issue. The woman was talking to King, not Rand. Have you never dined in a group setting and gotten up when two other people start getting into it? That's what most sensible people would do. It's the old "this is an A and B conversation, so C you way out of here" scenario.
Click to expand...

She was talking to both of them. Rand just happened to run away before the conversation began.
 
140.85 said:
I honestly can't hold it against Paul if he left for the reason the author is projecting. Politics is war and it's tough to differentiate between taxpayers that have real concerns and ideologues who want to ambush you in the hope of getting something on film they can use against you. When it doubt, don't say shit and remove yourself from the situation.
Click to expand...

Huh? In what world is running away from a debate a good thing when you are a politician with aspirations of higher office? Obama stood there while "Joe the fake plumber" spewed his shit and instead of running away, he calmly discussed things and shut him up with facts.

I agree that Politics is war but it's not a physical one...it's a war of appearances, charisma, and most importantly one of influence. How does Paul "influence" this woman or the public at large if he isn't even willing to engage??? LOL...unscripted debate with the unwashed masses? Run away!!!!
 
King was a smug asswipe and douche of epic proportions, but he stood up from his lunch and talked with the couple directly at length until they left. That's admirable, even if his policies are wrong and insulting. I'm sure this was cathartic for those two despite his dickishness. Paul just scurried away.
 
Measley said:
She was talking to both of them. Rand just happened to run away before the conversation began.
Click to expand...

Was there more than what the linked video showed? Because it looks like she's just talking to King while Rand is eating. If I'm eating with a group of people, I don't interrupt other peoples' conversations if I want to get up. So what's the deal?

Now of course, he's not just getting up to stretch his legs or go get a Tums. Someone with a message/agenda (however you interpret it) has just ambushed their lunch to try and create a gotcha moment. Regardless of the merit of her message, you'd have to suspect that this woman has some sort of political affiliation if she's trying to create a gotcha moment to be exploited for political reasons. I maintain, even if she were talking to both of them, a politician/statesman doesn't have to dignify such cheap shots with a response. There are more constructive ways to get that point across and Rand Paul has usually been good about making himself available for constructive debate.

Like or dislike Rand, going with the knee-jerk "hur hur, look at the 'fraidy cat run away' card is juvenile and undermines any serious debate we're trying to have here. Criticize his platform and his record, but these forced schoolyard taunts are petty and pathetic.
 
JinjoUnchained said:
Was there more than what the linked video showed? Because it looks like she's just talking to King while Rand is eating. If I'm eating with a group of people, I don't interrupt other peoples' conversations if I want to get up. So what's the deal?

Now of course, he's not just getting up to stretch his legs or go get a Tums. Someone with a message/agenda (however you interpret it) has just ambushed their lunch to try and create a gotcha moment. Regardless of the merit of her message, you'd have to suspect that this woman has some sort of political affiliation if she's trying to create a gotcha moment to be exploited for political reasons. I maintain, even if she were talking to both of them, a politician/statesman doesn't have to dignify such cheap shots with a response. There are more constructive ways to get that point across and Rand Paul has usually been good about making himself available for constructive debate.

Like or dislike Rand, going with the knee-jerk "hur hur, look at the 'fraidy cat run away' card is juvenile and undermines any serious debate we're trying to have here. Criticize his platform and his record, but these forced schoolyard taunts are petty and pathetic.
Click to expand...

How do you debate someone whose left the table and taken the mustard?
 
speculawyer said:
He's a fake libertarian. The official Libertarian position on immigration is pretty pro-immigration.
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration

Rand Paul is just a Republican that smoked pot.
Click to expand...

Yep. Paul's just a rank and file Republican who gives libertarian causes some lip service now and again. He's one of those guys who will do 4 different interviews on 4 different networks and will hold a different position on the same issue for each one.
 
140.85 said:
I honestly can't hold it against Paul if he left for the reason the author is projecting. Politics is war and it's tough to differentiate between taxpayers that have real concerns and ideologues who want to ambush you in the hope of getting something on film they can use against you. When it doubt, don't say shit and remove yourself from the situation.
Click to expand...
Ding ding.

What does he have to gain? Its not like anyone who already disagrees with him( which is all poligaf here in this case) are going to do anything but vote Democrat anyway. He might as well leave and avoid worse press than this.
 
3rdman said:
How do you debate someone whose left the table and taken the mustard?
Click to expand...

Hah. In seriousness, though, this is not a debate, it's an ambush/political stunt. If you want to see Rand Paul balk at the opposition, go watch his video from his speech at Howard University. Or his many civil disagreements with liberals on MSNBC. Or recently when he went on Sean Hannity to criticize Hannity's foreign policy views.

Those were actual debates. This woman was not trying to debate. She was trying to launch a tacky political stunt that undermines that truth of her message. People complain about how mudslinging and political tactics get in the way of serious debate, but then create threads like these that don't serve any actual productive discussion. You can't have it both ways.
 
The hilarity continues. It's not an ambush to expect a politician of all people to speak or even argue with someone whom their policies directly effect. Full stop.
 
Lowmelody said:
The hilarity continues. It's not an ambush to expect a politician of all people to speak or even argue with someone whom their policies directly effect. Full stop.
Click to expand...

A debate requires that both parties are willing to present their views in a fact-based, fair manner and modify their position as new information is being presented. Neither this woman nor King where willing to do that. They were both there to shout talking points and tune out the opposition. Rand decided to not get in the middle of that "debate". That's the mature thing to do. Now maybe he could have been a little calmer and not visibly displayed panic, or wore a cooler shirt, but what does any of that have to do with the issue?
 
JinjoUnchained said:
A debate requires that both parties are willing to present their views in a fact-based, fair manner and modify their position as new information is being presented. Neither this woman nor King where willing to do that. They were both there to shout talking points and tune out the opposition. Rand decided to not get in the middle of that "debate". That's the mature thing to do. Now maybe he could have been a little calmer and not visibly displayed panic, or wore a cooler shirt, but what does any of that have to do with the issue?
Click to expand...

How exactly do you tell someone who had no control of how they arrived here and was raised, socialized and educated here that they no longer belong? The same person who now works here and pays taxes as a productive member of our society. I'm pretty sure that whatever response that is, right or wrong, is more mature than grabbing the mustard and running.
 
Zaphod said:
How exactly do you tell someone who had no control of how they arrived here and was raised, socialized and educated here that they no longer belong? The same person who now works here and pays taxes as a productive member of our society. I'm pretty sure that whatever response that is, right or wrong, is more mature than grabbing the mustard and running.
Click to expand...

Exactly

That's just it, Paul can peddle this shit to his old white colleagues and the voters that share this strain of hate but has not the fortitude or nerve to directly speak with someone caught under his heel. Hes a feckless coward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Paul McCartney BANNED on Reddit
33
472
mopspear replied
LTTP - Breaking Bad
Opinion Spoilers Drama 
42
543
lughnasadh123 replied
Paul Kalkbrenner's new album The Essence
0
315
Sticks replied
Jake Paul vs. Anthony Joshua Set for December 19
2 3 4 5 6
253
3K
Kacho replied
Pluribus, created by Vince Gilligan (Breaking Bad), sci-fi series on Apple TV+
12 13 14 15 16
790
10K
LyricalShrike replied
Top Bottom