Talk:Rand Paul
|
This United States politics related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Drones/Black Outreach Center[edit]
Does anyone have sources on his whole "I oppose drones overseas, but support drone striking domestic shoplifters!" thing? Also, what do people here think of his giving the opening speech to the GOP's black outreach center in Detroit...to a mostly white audience?
He's like white privilege in human form.174.77.62.107 (talk)
Substantiating the Global Warming Denialist category[edit]
I have no doubts that he is, but I do think our article should substantiate every category it's in. Anyone got a starting point? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- He acknowledges it's happening, but thinks man has nothing to do with it and a 97% conscious of scientists is not conclusive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Stupid question about that 97% number, is that of climatologists or of all scientists? Because most people are idiots, scientists included, and that remaining 3% could be all engineers or something. CorruptUser (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- He doesn't really have a consistent stance on the issue, it seems. Maybe we can add something in the article about while he's seemingly one of the few Republican candidates that acknowledges climate change (likely for purely strategic reasons), he's bound to oppose any actual government action to combat it for being anti-business or anti-libertarian. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's an oft-repeated, rarely understood fact. Where that number came from was a meta-analysis of all climate papers submitted to major climate journals. First they discarded all papers that appeared to neither explicitly or implicitly assert anything about climate change. 97% of the remaining papers either implicitly accepted(through climate modeling assumptions) or explicitly stated the scientific position that human activity is affecting climate through increased temperatures. That's where 97% comes from. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, at this point everyone who knows their shit knows what is happening and why. They only may disagree as to the degree. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's an oft-repeated, rarely understood fact. Where that number came from was a meta-analysis of all climate papers submitted to major climate journals. First they discarded all papers that appeared to neither explicitly or implicitly assert anything about climate change. 97% of the remaining papers either implicitly accepted(through climate modeling assumptions) or explicitly stated the scientific position that human activity is affecting climate through increased temperatures. That's where 97% comes from. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Chickenhawk?[edit]
This debate has rekindled. I see there was a similar debate three years ago. My vote would be to remove the label. I'm not crazy about it in general and it's overused. --Read-Write (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, it might be sensu stricto an overstatement. After all, the article says he filibustered the renewal of the PATRIOT act. Does RW need a category for "sabre-rattling blowhards"? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's even better than "armchair warrior"!--Kugelschreiber (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
How far to Silver?[edit]
Thoughts? Please note the reflist. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, this crosses the bronze threshold at least. I've removed the snarky comments from the reflist to make it more readable. Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Let's get a barnstar in here, please. Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great work, Plutoniumboss! I'm brainstarring it now
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Great work, Plutoniumboss! I'm brainstarring it now
- Let's get a barnstar in here, please. Plutoniumboss (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Trump flip-flops again[edit]
Remember this (brilliant) tweet? Well — water under the bridge, it seems!
Here's an offical endorsement from the POTUS.
Because friends are enemies and enemies are friends based entirely on what's useful right now to the Donald. Jail Hillary, then don't jail her. Investigate, then don't investigate. Shower people with shit one day, shower them with praise the next. And on it goes. 
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)