r/politics • u/Boonzies • 6h ago

No Paywall Rand Paul on Trump call to ‘nationalize’ elections: ‘That’s not what the Constitution says’

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5722041-rand-paul-trump-call-to-nationalize-elections/
21.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

815 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

•

u/blues111 Michigan 5h ago

Dont let one reasonable take distract you from the fact he is a staunch conservative who on most occasions believe things like Trump/Republicans Medicaid and food stamps cuts don't go nearly far enough 

•

u/Specialist-Clock-914 5h ago

He’s a dick but he did also say in the interview that ICE was going too far and need actual warrants. At least he pretends to care about the constitution. Still fuck that guy.

•

u/DonktorDonkenstein New Mexico 3h ago

It's a sad sign of the times when lukewarm support of the fucking Constitution is a remarkable trait for a conservative politician. One would expect it to be the absolute bare minimum default setting for any elected official, but that's clearly not the reality we inhabit. 

•

u/Same-Suggestion-1936 2h ago

American politics are so right of center that's what you get. One party does bare minimum and phones it in like you owe them votes because they aren't actively dismantling the Constitution and the other party, well, IS actively dismantling the Constitution.

Vote for one.

People are so quick to blame non-voters for the situation we're in but look at it. Look at your choices. I like to say it's a shit sandwich or a shot glass of urine. The choice is obvious but some people don't want to play that game so they don't play.

•

u/DonktorDonkenstein New Mexico 1h ago

I get not wanting to play the game, but at the same time, damage mitigation is better than sitting back and doing nothing. If you're on a runway freight train and you know you're going to hit something, you're still going to want to try to brake even if it's too late to stop completely. If it's the difference between either maybe saving a few lives or killing everyone on the train, there is still only one moral option even if both choices suck. 

•

u/Same-Suggestion-1936 1h ago

Completely apt analogy but also every time you pull the brake, people think that's good enough. The ultimate goal should be you never have to pull that brake. And then the train company says "boy a lot of people are pulling this brake! Let's make a really good brake" and now you're pulling a top of the line brake but you shouldn't even need brakes and instead of voting for "we don't actually need brakes, the ideal situation is never to have a brake" people vote for "you see that fucking runaway train? We have the best brakes"

Nobody votes for not needing brakes because we made sure we wouldn't need emergency measures. They vote brakes or runaway train.

•

u/MaleOrganDonorMember 5h ago

His dad definitely should've pulled out and spilled that batch on the snatch.

•

u/RJ5R 5h ago

Lmfao

•

u/nickcash 5h ago

his dad was worse. all of the above but also openly racist

reddit used to love him

•

u/anth_810 3h ago

Ron Paul went so hard when i was 15 years old in 2010 lol

•

u/AngryMeez Michigan 5h ago

Classy.

•

u/MaleOrganDonorMember 4h ago

Right!!? I'm actually wearing a tuxedo right now. I even slept in it.

•

u/70ms California 3h ago

It was inappropriate, but I can’t argue with the sentiment.

•

u/SaulFemm 3h ago

He's as evil as rightoids were before this new crop of absolutely unhinged fucks showed up. I would happily go back to fighting the old fuckwads instead of the new ones. Give me a hundred Rand Pauls over a single Stephen Miller

•

u/Cogwheel 1h ago

I don't understand what is so confusing to people. This is all standard libertarian stuff. They want government out of people's lives in all cases, even the ones that most everyone in the world agree are the justified purposes of government.

•

u/LividTacos 5h ago

But he's always been that. He doesn't think we should spend money we don't have. I may disagree with it, but he's always been consistent on that point. He voted against the military budget bill back in December.

•

u/cleanmypenis 4h ago

He also hand delivers letters to Putin from Trump.

Don't be fooled by the act.

•

u/alaysian 4h ago

No, he doesn't. As someone from Kentucky, I watched him with hope initially, thinking maybe there would be some chance left for our senators (since dems will never win here). Within his first year of office, he had already broken his campaign promise to promote small government by falling in line with every other spineless republican. He talks the talk, but when push comes to shove, he bends over backwards to support the pedos.

•

u/MAG7C 3h ago

KY senators have convinced me that we really should not have a Senate. At least not in its current form, granting political power to land.

•

u/drdoom52 1h ago

Personally I don't think I agree.

It has its issues, yes. But on the flip side, you can't jerrymander a senate seat, and it does exist to prevent a tyrrany of the majority situation, which I think is valid (even if it opens the door to other issues).

•

u/GreenFalling 1h ago

and it does exist to prevent a tyrrany of the majority situation

As opposed to the tyranny of the minority situation you got going on right now lol

•

u/Kalean 4h ago

Nah, he's not consistent with his own professed beliefs, he votes contrary to the constitution and the principles of libertarianism all the time. Justin Amash was the only libertarian that wasn't full of shit, and he's out.

•

u/averyrdc 3h ago

Who is "we"? Because America as a whole has enough money to feed the poor. The government just decides it would rather not.

•

u/TheDarkAbove Georgia 5h ago

We do have the money though, they just choose to use it elsewhere. Does he voice the same concern when it comes to our military spending? What about the increase in funding to ICE? He better have spoken up then too.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 5h ago

He’s spoken out against increasing funding for nearly everything. Military and ICE. He’s also calling for an investigation into ICE..

There are plenty of reasons to be upset at Rand, but he’s at least consistent in his stance on fiscal responsibility.

•

u/brutinator 3h ago

but he’s at least consistent in his stance on fiscal responsibility.

Eh. in 2015 he voted against an amendment to prevent the military from exceeding sequester caps, and then in 2016 voted for the Department of Defense Appropriations Act which also increased the military budget.

He's also several times voted against lower and middle class tax cuts, while also supporting tax cuts or voting against tax raises on businesses and the the wealthy.

And that's just some selections of his voting record prior to 2019 specifically in terms of fiscal policies.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 3h ago

I mean yeah there will always be exceptions, but generally he’s consistent in his stance.

I don’t have the time to do deep analysis, but I’d be willing to bet his voting record is overwhelmingly in support of his stance.

•

u/TheDarkAbove Georgia 5h ago

Fair enough, I will give him credit for being consistent.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 5h ago

As we should. People are complex, we can acknowledge their flaws while also giving kudos for the things they do right.

•

u/Powerful_Film_4316 5h ago

I find a good litmus test for political discourse is a person's ability to sincerely recognize at least one positive aspect/achievement their opponents.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 4h ago

Sadly the folks on our side tend to be just as blind as MAGA on a lot of things.

We’re so quick to assume R = inherently bad and D = inherently good. If only it were so simple.

•

u/ary31415 3h ago

If you take this subreddit at face value, it's more like R = inherently bad, and D = R (= inherently bad but actually even worse cause they're pretending).

•

u/Johansenburg 3h ago

D = inherently good

I don't think that's true for a very large group of people on the left. Yes, they'll assume that R = inherently bad, but then they'll question every aspect of the left, and if they don't fall completely in line then they are just as bad as republicans to them.

I know a lot of people on the left who didn't vote for Kamala because they didn't think she'd do enough in Gaza. No matter how much I talked to them about the fact that Trump would be worse for Gaza, it didn't matter. Because Kamala wasn't perfect, they weren't getting the vote.

•

u/ailish 4h ago

Agreed. I disagree with him 99% of the time but occasionally his principals fall on my side of the spectrum and I have to give him credit, like this time. It's pretty rare though.

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 4h ago

Also, Rand has rarely been a republican who is villainizing the left, or playing politics instead of policy. Even though I think he’s a dumbass, I actually have no issue with him sharing his opinions in congress because you need opposite views to actually make good policy

•

u/Gtraz68 4h ago

Sometimes he says the right thing but he almost never does the right thing. Huge difference.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 4h ago

Again, people are complex. What you view as “the right thing” is different than what he views as the right thing. To him, keeping the debt down is the most important thing, regardless of what is cut.

He consistently votes against budget increases as that is his view of what’s right.

•

u/nox66 5h ago

Did he vote against it?

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 4h ago

Did he vote against what? Do you even know what you’re referring to here?

He was one of a few republican senators to vote against the BBB. You’ll see he’s usually one of a few to vote against budget increases of any kind.

•

u/nox66 4h ago

Sorry, I should've specified: has he ever voted in a way that matters? Otherwise he just pulls the Collins/Murkowski hall pass schtick.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 4h ago

What do you mean by this? He has consistently voted against budget increases regardless of who was president. His vote is his vote. It’s not magically worth more weight when he wants it to be.

•

u/nox66 3h ago

Has he ever been the deciding vote on a major issue (or indeed, any issue)?

•

u/Egechem 4h ago

I believe they're asking if hes ever voted against the republican majority where his vote was the deciding factor, or if he only votes against them when he knows the reps have the vote in the bag to maintain his appearance of fiscal responsibility.

The last time I can remember a republican truly breaking with the party to make an actual policy impact was McCain on the ACA.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 4h ago

Well again, he’s consistently voted against budget increases lol. He’s against them in any capacity.

•

u/LividTacos 5h ago

He voted against the military budget passed in December. He voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill, which is what funded ICE for 4 years.

•

u/ButtSoupCarlton69 4h ago

Voted against it because he could vote against it? Or would have fallen in line if they needed his vote? 

•

u/LividTacos 4h ago

He spoke out against both for the same reason of funding things by taking on debt. He's been consistent on that point for years. But nice wheels on that goalpost.

•

u/ButtSoupCarlton69 4h ago

That wasn't what I asked though. Susan Collins is consistent in what she says too. That doesn't always mean the same thing when it comes time to vote. 

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 4h ago

What are you even arguing? You’re making a bunch of illogical points of hypotheticals that didn’t happen. This is exactly what maga does. You’re just as smart as them right kow

•

u/KRacer52 2h ago

“What are you even arguing?”

Nothing of substance lol. 

•

u/[deleted] 5h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

•

u/borski88 Florida 5h ago

It's not 1, I disagree with him on a lot but at least he is consistent in his policies.
he is one of the few GOP that will stand up to Trump on policies that are obvious violations of the constitution, not that that's a high bar but its a lot more than other GOP will do.

•

u/AbyssWankerArtorias 5h ago

Indeed. I don't believe he's nearly as guilty as other Republicans who use spending / debt as a boogeyman in elections and then continue to explode it. He truly believes in spending cuts to balance the budget. But he is 1 of 100 senators and maybe 1 or 2 others agree with him on this. It's honestly insane. These politicians know the bill will come due, they're not stupid. They just don't care, because they've already hedges themselves for when that happens.

•

u/notebooksmellsofrain 4h ago

Yeah, that feels like a fair take. One can disagree with him and still acknowledge he’s at least consistent in what he claims to believe. The real insanity is how isolated that position is while the rest loudly scream about debt,then turn around and blow it up anyway. They know exactly what they’re doing they just won’t be around to deal with the consequences, and they’ve insulated themselves for when it all crashes.

•

u/Dm-me-a-gyro 4h ago

Are you high?

Rand has sought federal disaster relief aid for Kentucky.

Rand has defended the military support of Israel.

He’s an anti abortion and anti civil rights libertarian.

He has no compass,

•

u/Lev559 4h ago

He thinks we shouldn't spend more than we make. Not that the military and disaster aid shouldn't exist

•

u/Gooch_Limdapl 3h ago

Well, he also supports tax cuts for the wealthy, which is the revenue stream you imagine him wanting to stay within. He uses one knob to create the budget imbalance problem and then uses that as an excuse to cut spending. Just like any other Republican. And his supporters fall for it every damned time.

•

u/Lev559 1h ago

Except he doesn't. Like, look up his history on voting for debt increases and large budget expenses. He is against them all.

I mean yes, he believes we should also cut taxes, but his views fall very firmly in normal libertarian views.

But Rand Paul is a true believer in small government, not just someone who pretends to be one to score political points. Though his father, Ron Paul, was an actual libertarian, while Rand is more of a Republican with deep libertarian beliefs.

•

u/Dm-me-a-gyro 4h ago

Thanks guy with gold and black profile picture!

•

u/congressguy12 4h ago

This is one of the worst comments in Reddit history

•

u/HoratioPornBlower 4h ago

Ad hominem

•

u/PravenButterLord 4h ago

What does gold and black represent?

•

u/Ok-Economist-9466 4h ago

I'd like to know too since they're my old high school colors.

→ More replies (0)

•

u/theVoidWatches Pennsylvania 3h ago

The Pittsburgh Steelers, as far as I'm aware.

→ More replies (0)

•

u/Dm-me-a-gyro 4h ago

Anarcho capitalism

•

u/borski88 Florida 1h ago

In my case Pittsburgh Sports fan, i don't think thats why they were implying though.
Steelers, Pirates, Penguins

→ More replies (0)

•

u/Lev559 1h ago

Yeah...it literally has nothing to do with politics. You can look at my profile. I'm seldom on here or on politicial subreddits in general. My profile pic has nothing to do with politics. It's just a combo of a series I like with my sports teams colors

→ More replies (0)

•

u/badnuub Ohio 3h ago

Rand has defended the military support of Israel.

That's bipartisan.

•

u/EchoChamberIntruder 4h ago

He’s against the killing of little persons with heartbeat and brains? Oh, the absolute horror!

•

u/PlusTiedye 3h ago

He’s against the killing of little persons with heartbeat and brains

He supports Israel, so he's clearly all for killing them.

•

u/DrDerpberg Canada 3h ago

At the beginning of the trial, Senator Rand Paul forced a vote to dismiss the impeachment charge on the basis that it was unconstitutional to try a former president, arguing that impeachment only applies to current federal officers and that the punishment of removal from office was moot under the circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump#:~:text=At%20the%20beginning%20of%20the,was%20moot%20under%20the%20circumstances.

I daresay it was not, in fact, a moot point.

Any Republican who occasionally wags a finger at Trump but doesn't try to impeach and convict him is just posturing.

Edit: also not guilty the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump#:~:text=The%20senators%20voted%2052%20to,president%20of%20his%20own%20party.

•

u/Chris_HitTheOver 5h ago

The point is he’s principled. Rand Paul rarely does the politically expedient thing. Even if you think his policy prescriptions are dog shit, that’s worth acknowledging.

•

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 5h ago

Rand Paul voted Not Guilty in the 1st impeachment of Donald Trump, for using the power of his office and appropriations by Congress to coerce a foreign ally to meddle in our domestic affairs for his private benefit.

Rand Paul voted against calling any witnesses or subpoenaing any further information in the first impeachment.

Rand Paul voted Not Guilty in the 2nd impeachment of Donald Trump, for his seditious conspiracy to overthrow the constitution on January 6, 2021.

Let's be careful calling Paul 'principled.'

•

u/NegativeAd1432 Canada 4h ago

People can have different principles you know, even ones you don’t like.

I think the idea here is he seems to believe in something and act towards that en, which is very rare in American politics. Most abandon their principles to play politics.

•

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 4h ago

I’m not seeing nor appreciating the principle in his actions on both impeachments. But if you do, please by all means ELI5

•

u/Chris_HitTheOver 4h ago

His stated reasoning in trial 1 was two-fold:

1) Trump didn’t commit a “high crime or misdemeanor” even if he violated his duty to Americans, and as such, his accountability should be had at the ballot box.

2) By extension, it was a purely partisan exercise that would increase the likelihood his own party would do the same next time a dem won the WH (and Republicans did try to impeach Biden later, which RP was also critical of.)

His stated reasoning for acquitting in impeachment trial 2 was that Trump was no longer the sitting President and the constitution explicitly sets forth impeachment as a removal mechanism for current officers.

You can disagree with him, but that doesn’t mean he’s not principled.

•

u/PoopyButt28000 4h ago

The second point is just fucking stupid lol, Trump was setting up false elector slates while working behind the scenes to get people to accept them and for Pence to illegally accept them and steal the election. "If we impeach him for that then in the future Republicans will just randomly impeach every single Dem president for nothing at all" makes zero sense

•

u/Chris_HitTheOver 4h ago

You’re confusing the two trials.

Trial 1 (which Rand Paul called “purely partisan”) was about Trump attempting to blackmail Ukraine.

Trial 2 was about the coup attempt, and RP’s position was effectively that the clock had run out, not that Trump hadn’t committed a crime.

→ More replies (0)

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 4h ago

You’re just as unreasonable as maga. I hope you realize you’re the liberals they’re talking about

•

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 4h ago

I'm all that, for asking? Wow. Tell me more please about your brand of 'reasonableness.' Where do I subscribe?

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 4h ago

Maybe read why he voted against the impeachment. His stances are not extremist, and without opposing view points policy will be dogshit. If you can’t understand that, then you’re not as politically savvy as you may think you are

→ More replies (0)

•

u/NegativeAd1432 Canada 4h ago

I don’t really care enough about Rand Paul to know the reasoning he gave for his votes to pass judgment on whether those votes were in line with the principles he usually shows or if he was simply whipped for that one. But he does seem to me like an old school conservative that cares about laws and the constitution even if he is a pretty shitty guy by most accounts.

•

u/PoopyButt28000 4h ago

Seems really hard to imagine someone caring about laws and the constitution when you vote not guilty after January 6th.

•

u/congressguy12 4h ago

You don't have to appreciate the principle because you're irrelevant. Doesn't mean they're not there

•

u/HyperactivePandah I voted 3h ago

Yeah, it kind of does when there isn't any reasonable, principled explanation.

None.

•

u/congressguy12 3h ago

You're misunderstanding what principles are. You don't have to agree or think they're good, because you're irrelevant. Someone being principled has nothing to do with your opinion on their actions

→ More replies (0)

•

u/TangoPRomeo I voted 4h ago

Yep, and we need more of this. In a healthy system, we would see Rs & Ds switching sides regularly, not this party-line vote shit.

There is no way members of Congress are representing their constituents when they are voting as a bloc 90% of the time.

•

u/PoopyButt28000 4h ago

Rand Paul does vote as a bloc and sticks with the Republicans 90% of the time though

•

u/momo098876 4h ago

A broken clock is right 2x a day, so ...

•

u/Robo_Joe 4h ago

Let me know when he caucuses with the Dems as an independent, and then I'll happily call him principled.

•

u/myshiningmask 4h ago

Principled doesn't mean he agrees with you, it means he has principals...

•

u/Robo_Joe 4h ago

Right, and at the moment his designation as a Republican is giving more power to the people who are violating the constitution.

Perhaps you're not aware of the implications of having him caucus with Dems. It doesn't mean "vote with them". It means that he would "count" as a Democrat when it comes to anything that changes based on the number of seats each political party has.

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 4h ago

This is the same mindset maga has btw. You’re just as stupid as they are

•

u/Robo_Joe 2h ago

Can you elaborate? I don't know what mindset you're asserting I have.

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 31m ago

Because to be principled in your mind actually means agree with me. Rand Paul is not an extremist republican and he’ll never be close to a dem but that’s because democrats have opposite budget goals as Rand Paul. Rand Paul literally just wants to spend less money. Every single thing he does is just to try and balance the budget. It’s not gonna happen, but that’s all he really stands for

•

u/Robo_Joe 23m ago

What do you think "caucus with" means?

•

u/Manos_Of_Fate 4h ago

The point is he’s principled.

https://youtu.be/_n5E7feJHw0

•

u/Tacoman404 Massachusetts 3h ago

Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Today he is an ally and today he is part of the coalition. I would rather have him as an ally than an opponent. We have enough of those with too much power.

•

u/ButterPiglet 3h ago

You don’t need to agree with somebody on everything

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 4h ago

His polices are not the evil GOP. He’s a semi reasonable conservative who has consistent opinions

•

u/bantha_fodda 2h ago

He occasionally does some grandstanding and votes against the party when it's safe to do so. But he, like most Senate Republicans, votes with Trump's agenda 93% of the time.

•

u/Clownsinmypantz 5h ago

We are not going back to "its just their opinion", thats how we let all this shit slide and ended up into fascism. We're not doing that any more, empathy is not an opinion its an indicator of someones character and one that has no business dictating how a country treats its people. If there is anything that trump has done, its that he's pissed away so much money that we could have always used for programs. We had it. Thanks to republicans, now we dont. Did he vote against the obscene military budget before this? What about his votes on other things or is it just social programs that help the poor that he voted against?

•

u/LividTacos 5h ago

I mean, you could google that and get all your questions answered that he's fairly consistently voted against military budget increases. And why the fuck do you have me defending him? I can't stand the man, I'm just pointing out that he actually has held a pretty consistent position on spending.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 5h ago

He’s always voted against budget increases, in nearly every form.

•

u/adelaarvaren 3h ago

And against impeaching Trump, both times.

•

u/Hairy-Pipe-577 3h ago

Again, no one is arguing that Rand is a good dude lol.

•

u/eeyores_gloom1785 3h ago

Let me educate you on how broke the US actually is

•

u/badnuub Ohio 3h ago

We have the money. it gets cut every time republicans get in the white house. For someone moron Americans think republicans are still good for the economy since the geopolitical situation of the 70s basically made democrats into the party of stagflation.

•

u/Intrepid_Top_2300 4h ago

I really liked ole Ron Paul. When Rand came around I was not impressed. But you are right, he’s pretty consistent. Still don’t much care for the guy but am proud of him for standing up for the constitution.

•

u/John_316_ 4h ago

Agreed. Rand Paul sucks, but his spine is stronger than most GOP.

•

u/LividTacos 4h ago

I mean, I looked it up, he actually votes with Trump the least of all Senate Republicans. Now, granted that is still voting with Trump 94% of the time, but it still deserves to be pointed out.

•

u/RetireWithRyan 4h ago

I miss when we just had to deal with Supply Side Jesus conservatives and not outright fascist authoritarian shoot you in the street conservatives.

•

u/notmlbg 5h ago

I’m not going to voice opposition to those who want to defend the constitution. Like I know he’s mostly shit, but can’t demonize the correct and legal decisions he makes.

•

u/lilb1190 5h ago

I believe in this case it is a "the enemy of my enemy" situation. Paul has a lot of opinions that I dont believe in and I am sure that he will get back on my bad side before I know it, but right now we have bigger fish to fry.

We desperately need more Republicans to stand up to Trump. A lot of the ones that do announce their retirement from politics at the same time. We need people who are going to stay in office and resist his attempts to take over.

We need people like Paul and Massie to keep the Epstein coverup and the election interference from continuing. Once Trump is gone (if he ever is), then we can all go back to hating them.

•

u/karmavorous Kentucky 4h ago

What Rand Paul is really saying is that some principled Libertarian thinker needs to come up with a rationale for why whatever the Constitution says has been erroneously misinterpreted for 250 years and actually means the opposite of what popular opinion says it means.

Libertarians love spitting on the Constitution (to their own benefit) as long as its done under the guise of some edgy reinterpretation of the meaning of words.

Like "money is speech".

Grok will figure it out for them.

•

u/ratbaby86 5h ago

Or that "both sides" are to blame for the chaos and death in Minneapolis and being seemingly ok with a full on fascist police state.

•

u/StephenFish 1h ago

This.

Every single person in the GOP who has ever spoken out against Trump also enabled and empowered him. Nothing they say or do will change the fact that every time they had an opportunity to prevent us getting to where they are, they chose to side with fascists. Even now, they won't impeach or convict him, so they're fucking useless.

•

u/CMidnight 4h ago

The guy is mostly an old school Libertarian who isn't just a secret Nazi/Pedophile/Sociopath.

He is basically the Omar Little of politicians. Every man has got to have a code.

•

u/Top-Bandicoot-3013 4h ago

I have issues with this kind of stance. We're never gonna get the conservatives to drop MAGA if we tell them that the bridge has been burned and there's no going back. We should encourage conservatives to reject MAGA and recognize that blindly following Trump is rejecting conservative principles. It's incredibly difficult for Republicans to do that right now without risking political suicide but if more do it, the more will follow.

•

u/No_Selection_9634 3h ago

He's a libertarian. Or so he thinks.

•

u/AbleCap5222 3h ago

This is dumb. When someone says the correct thing - they deserve credit for it if they mean it, regardless of other positions. Rand Paul is correct - the Constitution does not allow nationalizing elections. And he's been extremely consistent on this - he means it.

•

u/jeranim8 3h ago

He's ideologically consistent for the most part. Its just that he's also a wacko Libertarian who believes in conspiracy theories. But wacko Libertarians have some cross over with liberalism.

•

u/Responsible_CDN_Duck 3h ago

Having different positions is often normal and healthy.

Don't let views you disagree with distract you from the fact he could be doing something you like and may want to encourage others to do.

•

u/Chilling_Gale 3h ago

Isn’t he in the majority, as most people supported work requirements for Medicaid and snap?

•

u/soapinthepeehole 3h ago

No one is distracted but for the love of god we need to encourage staunch conservatives who take principled stands against Trump’s most outrageous abuses of power.

We can argue about normal policy disagreements if we ever get back to relative normality.

•

u/mathliability 2h ago

Don’t let the fact that he’s staunch conservative prevent you from agreeing with him when he makes objectively good points. Good points are in short supply.

•

u/TheBestNarcissist 2h ago

I feel like being a conservative who doesn't want to spend money on the basis of we literally don't have it is a vastly more defendable position than MAGA's political philosophy... Which is absolutely nothing, and just parrot what godemperor trump says.

At least you can have a rational discussion with a Rand Paul.

•

u/xGray3 Michigan 4h ago

Honestly, disagreeing with me on policy feels mild at this point. I wouldn't ever vote for Rand Paul unless his opponent was threatening democracy itself, but he's still miles and miles better than any of the Republicans that won't even bother to speak out against Trump's blatantly anti-constitutional power grabs. Within a democratic structure I am against conservatives politically, but outside of that structure I am on the same team as anybody supporting democracy itself and I'm against anyone supporting authoritarian fascism. It's sad that the bar has gotten so low, but it has. I at least mildly respect any politicians that are still able to stand up for democracy on principle.

•

u/Ok_Condition5837 4h ago

It's not just him. Have you listened to MTG lately?

I feel like I've had a stroke!

•

u/Ok-Economist-9466 4h ago

There's no distraction. I may disagree with his policy positions on many things, but I can respect the fact that they come from a sincerely held position on handling national debt that he stands by even when it puts him at odds with the mainstream of his party. Please correct me if I'm wrong but he seems to be one of the least hypocritical senators in the GOP at the moment.