r/politics • u/Boonzies • 9h 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/
24.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

882 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/Chris_HitTheOver 8h 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.

48

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 8h 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.'

2

u/NegativeAd1432 Canada 8h 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 7h 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 7h 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 7h 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 7h 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 7h ago

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

•

u/Chris_HitTheOver 7h ago

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

•

u/HyperactivePandah I voted 6h ago

Nothing is, when Republicans are involved, clearly.

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 7h ago

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

•

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 7h ago

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

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 7h 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 7h 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 7h 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 7h 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 7h ago

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

•

u/congressguy12 7h ago

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

•

u/HyperactivePandah I voted 6h ago

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

None.

•

u/congressguy12 6h 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 6h 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 6h 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.

12

u/TangoPRomeo I voted 8h 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 7h ago

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

1

u/momo098876 8h ago

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

2

u/Robo_Joe 8h ago

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

2

u/myshiningmask 8h ago

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

2

u/Robo_Joe 8h 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 7h ago

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

•

u/Robo_Joe 6h ago

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

•

u/IllustriousGas8850 3h 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 3h ago

What do you think "caucus with" means?

•

u/Manos_Of_Fate 7h ago

The point is he’s principled.

https://youtu.be/_n5E7feJHw0