Rand Paul Announcing Presidential Run!!!!!

Because he's not running for President of Kentucky.

And neither did Jefferson run for President of VA? Or did Reagan run for President of CA? Yet both of those men supported limited government and similar things that would have to be implemented on the state level. But of course the President is the leader of the country and can have a vast influence on how states legislate. With a majority in both houses of Congress and majorities in state legislatures and Governorships, this is the best time for a Republican president that can move the country back to a limited one.

Talk about empty speechifying...

Let’s take it one issue at a time. What, in your view, is the President of the United States’ role in implementing school vouchers?

None. There's a very limited role, Constitutionally that is, for the President. Lincoln is most significantly known for changing that and later FDR who increased the role and power of the President. I'd personally like to see the President's role in a lot of things to be scaled back.

Then by your own criterion, Paul's record on education in his home state is meaningless, if not counterproductive.

Is Paul's record on education the only thing I cited? Also, his record is very important because at least I know he doesn't support common core or support some other type of national education initiative. I can probably safely assume the Rand also thinks that the Dept. Of Ed. should be eliminated. I can't say the same about Jeb Bush, which is a big problem for me.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/08/media/rand-paul-savannah-guthrie/index.html

Interesting how the President is allowed to "evolve" on issues yet Paul isn't allowed the same consideration on an ever changing subject such as foreign policy.

No. As I said, "Let’s take it one issue at a time."

Okay, so it's the usual Tea Party position: "Throw out the whole thing!!!"

And replace it with -? Home schooling? Optional education? A return to illiteracy and child labor?

You guys never have an answer to that.

Actually a lot of Tea Party people and libertarians advocate charter schools, home schooling, block grants, and being able choose what school go to despite where you live. Just because you don't like the solutions, doesn't mean they haven't been suggested.

Which, again, is state-level governance. But how do you implement any of that on a federal level, particularly after you've eliminated the Department of Education? Who, for example, sets the standards for curriculum?

This the same thing they did to Ron Paul, besides the media blackout, they were in control of the narrative. Ron Paul unfortunately let them run with it and when he didn't, they cut him off. Hopefully Rand Paul will learn from this, which in this video it looks like he has. I just hope he can keep on track and on point.

ETA: This is what I was saying earlier though about the MSM. They are going to do this and he should know it. All Republicans should know this and not let the narrative get away from them.

State legislatures and local districts.

ETA: As President, Paul roll back the Dept. of Ed. And push Congress for block grants. That would be a good role for the President when it comes to education.

Speaking of failed policies, of which virtually every Republican policy is a failed policy, one of the Republican shills who was one of the primary guys pushing for abstanence only sex ed, who called real sex ed was some how immoral, his 17 year old daughter is pregnant.

Real sex ed works and it not only prevents unwanted pregnancies but it also prevents the spread of diseases while abstanence only is a complete failure. The students in abstanence only have sex at the same rates as kids in regular sex ed but they have much more unprotected sex. It is just a failed policy in every way imaginable.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/0...y-crusaders-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/

Block grants are usually a waste of money because they are money without accountability. If they want money from the feds then the feds not only have a right to direct how it is spent but they have a responsibility to do so. It prevents the backwards shithole states from taking the feds money and wasting it on failed policies like abstanence only sex ed.

That way we can have fact based policies with proven track records instead of ideological bullshit.

IOW, the same as it is now. So, again, Paul's record on education in his home state is not a persuasive factor in his bid for President.

Moving on, do you think "Legalize Weed" is a strong enough campaign promise? Combine that with restoring voting rights to felons, and the GOP might be able to count on armed robbers and potheads to swell the voter rolls, but would it be enough?

Paging @T.R ...come in, please...

Look, we already know you've out right dismissed Paul and you're not going to vote for him so I don't know why you insist on playing this game. Furthermore, I think his stance on education is important because if liberterians, republicans and independents share the same views, they want a candidate that will state that. I want to know that the guy in the White House is not going to involve the Feds in loca school districts. Again, I'm not certain I trust Jeb Bush. I'm fairly sure I can trust Paul, so yes, his positions in the past inform me and it's very important to maintain that position in debates and if he wins the presidency. No need to dismiss it.

He is to busy using the "dumb" rep on my post calling for real sex ed instead of failed abstanence only.

Who's "we"? The Psychic Friends Network?

The "game" is called "Explain why you support this candidate."

If you can't, then it's clear you're just mesmerized by pretty speeches.

At least you're making an effort. @T.R can't even think of a single moderate Republican.

Next?

"What Rand Paul has over Hillary is that she deleted emails. What Hillary has over Rand Paul is that she is sane" - Andy Borowitz

Thats not biased at all.

No, it's not... (Unless you believe Colbert's assertion that reality truly has a Liberal bias.) ...because she really did delete emails, and he really is batshit insane.

Okay, how do you see "Legalize Weed" as a strength in his campaign? Will the religious base go for it, or will it lose him support? I'll ask the same questions about voting rights for felons but, as I say, one thing at a time.

Legalize will not appeal to the base, but it can appeal to libertarians, independents and rouge liberals. This is the whole point of his campaign, broadening the tent while still adhering to Republican principles. Same answer for second topic.

Okay. Given the short fuse he's already displayed since he announced, it's dubious he'll even make it to the GOP primaries, but maybe he can be the Republican equivalent of Sharpton - the guy who doesn't have a prayer of being elected, but who can serve as the extreme voice that occasionally gets an issue on the table that everyone else is afraid to touch.

I'll assume you meant "rogue" Liberals?

Exactly why I like Al Sharpton. Traditionally, the GOP version of him has been Alan Keyes, who I also like and for the same reason. Both of them once and a while utter something that resonates and moves the debate. We need people like that. But I don't think Rand Paul is principled enough to actually serve that function. He doesn't want to be the lone wolf howling in the moonlight. He wants to be the alpha at the front of a large pack. When he discovers that the things FF and TR admire about him don't buy him a large pack, he will adjust his positions. You can already see this happening in the speeches that they prefer to ignore.

I'm not for anyone right now. I'm just pointing out that he's not the crazed right winger lefties are trying to portray him as

No, he's a little bit left in some areas, and a bit right in others, and batshit crazy across the board.

Not surprising. You can't even think of a moderate Republican candidate.

Which lefties would those be? The ones who think legalizing weed is a right-wing talking point? Name them.