The only candidate I could see saying that and actually have it mean something 'worthwhile' would be if a Native American were to say it. It'd still nuke his/her campaign though. We're gonna take back the country from the other party! Their beer sux!
Maybe because Rand doesn't declare himself a libertarian? Like, ever. The closest I think he's come is saying that the libertarians have a few good ideas. But he very definitely self-describes as a conservative. It's a reason I'm not sold immediately. That plus the pandering. I haven't looked closely enough at how he votes (required since what he says is unreliable), but at this point, I think I'd still rather have Gary Johnson.
Anyone else see Megyn Kelly calling out Rand for his sexist treatment of female journalists? When even FOX is criticizing the guy.... http://jezebel.com/fox-news-enigma-megyn-kelly-slams-rand-pauls-sexist-beh-1696804106/ maxread
Rand Paul walks out on an interview, turns off the lights. http://www.salon.com/2015/04/10/ran...iew_after_being_pressed_on_a_single_question/ "Not Ready For Prime Time" indeed.
Geez, people still haven't figured out that even as an obvious liberal rag salon is unreliable if you care about facts?
I'm not sure. I will agree that his position has changed. As an article I read yesterday pointed out, he's not the same as his Father. Ron Paul wanted to bring all troops home. He was very much a non-interventionist. Rand Paul once was against sending foreign aide to Israel based on the fact that they don't need it and we really shouldn't send foreign aide to any country that is fully capable of defending themselves. Rand also said that Iran wasn't a direct threat in 2007, but has since changed his mind. He doesn't agree withe the current "deal" we have and he thinks Congress should be involved in the process and not just the UN. On those two points, I agree. He needs to be more clear and concise with his thoughts on foriegn policy in general and with Iran specifically. Generally speaking, I think he is for less world police type foriegn policy, but I need more info.
Now that he's changed his mind about Iran, will Senator Paul also change his mind about letting Americans go hungry?
Can you show where they got the facts wrong and didn't immediately fix it? To compare right wing outlets frequently are factually wrong about most things yet never bother to correct anything. Next, Salon is left of center but they are hardly blindly pro-Democrat and instead frequently spend much of there time attacking democrats. Try reading their current cover story which is extremely harsh to Hillary as well as the democratic party in general. http://www.salon.com/2015/04/12/hil...et_it_shes_already_running_a_losing_campaign/
It means something different when they say it, because they really, really care about "the little guy."
I just had a great idea. Something that is fair and reasonable, and gets old people fed, and doesn't stick it to taxpayers. Everyone in prison for a violent crime (rape, murder, aggravated assault, etc) only gets enough food to survive and stay healthy. Doctors determine their exact caloric requirement. All the food that they now will not be getting (or money for the food) goes to feeding the elderly.
Interesting idea (given the girth of some inmates, it's clear their diet needs adjusting), but you'd still need an infrastructure to support it - hiring the doctors, distributing the food, etc. And that means the thing @Federal Farmer hates most - Moar Gubmint!!11!
Doctors/medical staff are already working in prisons. Once their caloric needs are set, only very periodic monitoring would be necessary. And I think a lot of people would volunteer to take food from a prison straight to old people's homes. Kind of like a volunteer "Visiting Angels" but faster and food related. I'd like to see a test run of this idea.
Not sure how serious an idea it is, but I'm pretty sure that good food is one thing that has a marked influence on the rate of violence and other incidents inside prisons.