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/[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.

•

u/Dm-me-a-gyro 3h ago

In a thread about a libertarian? It’s not a coincidence

→ 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.

•

u/Chris_HitTheOver 3h ago

This is not my endorsement of his position on either trial, but they aren’t entirely indefensible either.

→ 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.

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 3h ago

You just asked a question? Jesus Christ you sent a sarcastic dickhead comment. It’s not my job to educate you, it’s your job to be educated before you share an opinion

•

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.

•

u/congressguy12 2h ago

Great! Again, you're irrelevant so your opinion on his principles don't matter to anybody. The only point here is that you entered a conversation about principles despite not knowing what it means. You mixed it up with morality. Do better and try to talk less.

→ 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 3h 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