Talk:Rand Paul

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon politics USA.svg

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.


Sharron Angle[edit]

When are we going to get around to doing an article on her? Rabbitxhampster (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We do have one, it's right here. Röstigraben (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


I think someone confused Ophthalmologist with Optometrist. An ophthalmologist earned a MD or DO and took 4 years of specialized medical and surgical training. An optometrist takes a 4 year specialized doctorate program, like a dentist.

Besides, I'm sure any opthalmologist or optometrist has shown a great deal more dedication and intellectual integrity than whoever made the comment :P

Furthermore, I recall some questioning of his credentials during the campaign season, but I don't know how accurate they were. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I fixed it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"War Hawk"[edit]

I honestly hate having to defend someone like this but does this sound like a "war hawk" to you? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason why that opinion piece classified him as such was because he isn't a super extreme hardcore "withdraw all troops tomorrow" libertarian like his dad, but Paul was one of the only Senators to oppose the extension of the Patriot Act. That alone makes this classification ridiculous. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
You're just trying to attack his dad by removing any disctinction between Rand and Ron. Admit it. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
??? Not even going to respond to that. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Cut the auto-revert bullshit or start your own wiki where you are the only editor. If there is something specific you object to in the wording WE can work out some compromise wording. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I was going to wait for talk page concerns, but it seemed like your only reason was some personal beef with my edit history. I was actually trying to defend Rand Paul from unwarranted criticisms in that edit, and I would welcome legitimate issues to distinguish him from his father (I already pointed out that Ron is significantly more anti-war than his son, but that doesn't make Rand a "war hawk"). Mr. Anon (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not claiming either that Rand is "anti-war". As I pointed out in my source, which is directly from his website, he appears to be a moderate on foreign policy issues, and a libertarian on civil liberties. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have evidence from his voting record or campaign that appears to the contrary, feel free to provide. But an opinion source like this generally is not very reliable. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is the paragraph in question: "There is some question about how libertarian Rand really is. He has distanced himself from some of his father's views, campaigning as a hawk on the War on Terror, in particular calling for Guantanamo detainees to be tried in military tribunals rather than civilian courts, a moratorium on travel visas from "terrorist nations", opposing Constitutional protections for accused foreign terrorists, and supporting construction of military bases on the U.S. border.[2] However Dick Cheney and other neocons still don't trust him and think he is "not one of us", which is enough to have at least some libertarians excitedly foaming about his candidacy.[3] Plus, he thinks the United States is a "Christian nation" and it's the basis of the country's laws. With his war hawkishness and appeals to a religious state, he's about as "libertarian" as Glenn Beck, practically not taking ANY positions that go at odds with what hardcore Republicans like Rush Limbaugh's audience want to hear."
Particularly this: "in particular calling for Guantanamo detainees to be tried in military tribunals rather than civilian courts, a moratorium on travel visas from "terrorist nations", opposing Constitutional protections for accused foreign terrorists, and supporting construction of military bases on the U.S. border." All of that can be referenced from his own campaign material, and all of these positions are in contrast to his father. This part on the other hand can probably go, you are correct that Rand opposed extending the Patriot Act: "he's about as "libertarian" as Glenn Beck, practically not taking ANY positions that go at odds with what hardcore Republicans like Rush Limbaugh's audience want to hear." Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Upon further research, I concede that you are correct. I do think though that it's better to cite from his official statements rather than an opinion source. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I just put up what I hope is some compromise wording, if you're cool with that. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this version of the article is pretty good. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Okie dokie...argument over :" Have a beer.Invision-Board-France-355.gif I don't care one way or the other about the source that was cited, although IIRC it was an "anarchist" who is against voting across the board and wasn't exactly a fan of Ron Paul either. Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Libertarians and Rand Paul[edit]

Although I suppose some libertarians "foaming at the mouth" over a possible Paul candidacy is entirely feasible, I think we should also add that generally libertarians are just as suspicious of him regarding his beliefs as the neocons are, for the previously mentioned fact that he compromised rather significantly on his father's platform. While they do not accuse him of being a neocon in denial, as they would, say, Eric Dondero, they regard him as a political opportunist who cannot reliably adhere to freedom like they want. At least, that's what I get from the chatter in the libertubes. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

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 a mostly white audience?

He's like white privilege in human form. (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. (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)


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 Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:25, 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. Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)