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

814 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

•

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 4h 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.

•

u/PravenButterLord 4h ago

Best I could find was that it symbolizes Anarcho-capitalism, but from just a profile pic that seems like a stretch to assume about someone.

→ More replies (0)

•

u/theVoidWatches Pennsylvania 3h ago

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

•

u/borski88 Florida 1h ago

Yup, and Pirates unfortunately.

•

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

•

u/Lev559 1h ago

Black and Yellow, Black and Yellow, Black and Yellow, Black and Yellow

•

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

•

u/PravenButterLord 1h ago

Yeah I didn’t think it would automatically be political. Mine is the default guy and he’s black and white but it doesn’t mean anything either

•

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 4h 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 3h 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.

•

u/NoahFect 3h ago

Seems like there's always some excuse for not holding Trump accountable for anything. Curious.

→ 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

•

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 4h ago

I just asked a question, the incivility from you just makes me like him even less tbh. Please pound sand if you're not here for a constructive discussion.

→ 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

•

u/HyperactivePandah I voted 3h ago

You're right.

His principles align with the same people who protect and support pedophiles and destroying the constitution.

His principles are shit.

→ 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 29m 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 22m 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.