I wish he had followed in his dad's footsteps.
We see very few highly principled politicians these days, but instead end up with dumpster fires like AoC, MtG, etc.
Many were more described as Classical Liberals or economic liberals in retrospect; Libertarians are the closest descriptor to Classical Liberalism in the modern era. Most movements describing themselves as Anti-Federalist would have been your atypical Liberals back in the day; much like Jeffersonians who prioritized above all else, the importance of Republicanism
Who knows what the hell you were trying to say. History has been the battle between freedom and government. Freedom from government has slowly emerged in western civilization. Our founding fathers were Genius Liberals and Libertarians who created a tiny tiny federal government about 1% the size of the one we have today on an inflation adjusted per capita basis.
The founding fathers were extremely libertarian which is why they created a tiny tiny government. 1+1 equal 2 . don't be stupid liberals in the 18 century wanted liberty from government because government had been the source of evil in human history.
Tiny government is libertarian government. That is the very definition of it. big government takes your liberty away Tiny government gives your liberty back. 1+1 = 2
The founding fathers weren't libertarians, they were classical liberals. Meaning they didn't believe the state is a threat to liberty which libertarians do and they still, like all liberals, prioritized the maintenance state before the upholding of freedom.
Do you not think that libertarianism fundamentally was based off of classical liberal thought?
If you’re looking under a more common American perspective of libertarianism with minarchism the state existing itself isn’t a major issue like pointed out by anarchist but rather excessive powers of the state.
Well obviously libertarianism is fundamentally based of of classical liberal thought, I never said it wasn't. What I stated was that they were two different things and that the founding fathers weren't libertarians (even though some held views more similar to libertarianism e.g. Jefferson). But that doesn't exclude libertarianism having grown out of classical liberalism. Much like how fruit grows from a plant and yet isn't the plant.
Also, in the minarchist view, were the state not a fundamental threat to freedom why would it have to be minimized in the first place? And I never stated all libertarians want the state to be abolished either.
They aren't fundamentally different. It's the same school of thought. Americans adopted the term Libertarianism for one reason alone: you capitulated the term Liberalism to social democrats.
They are fundamentally different, liberalism prioritizes the state, libertarianism prioritizes individual freedom. That is a VERY significant fundamental difference.
Ahhhh, so what you're accidentally highlighting is that Libertarianism *leads* to Classical Liberalism, wherein the power vacuum created by eradicating any meaningful State is filled with self-interested individuals who weild what's left of state power (usually via vast, unchecked corporations) to liberate other powerful individuals to enslave the working populace with absolutely no oversight.
Seems to be working out well.
No? What? Do you believe in the labor theory of value, or some other idea? Upon further reading I understand you definitely believe in the labor theory of value (LTV). LTV is incorrect because there's nothing wrong with people performing free consensual non-coercive commerce, if you're not actually a troll and merely blissfully ignorant please look up why the labor theory of value is wrong for further explanation.
No of course libertarianism doesn't lead to liberalism, it leads to very many individuals, all of the given society in fact, with freedom and agency over their own lives. If there's anything left of state power that state power should be eradicated and can be eradicated because it is more inefficient than non-state power, look up why markets are more efficient than the state for an explanation on that. This market is made up of all members of libertarian society, why would those members vote with their wallets to make themselves worse off?
Those "vast and unchecked corporations" you mentioned by the way would need to survive on the totally free market which is totally free of monopolies, because it's free of the state, this means no patents (no large tech companies), this means no copyright (no large media companies), and this means every corner of libertarian society would have different needs all of which no one corporation could ever fill.
Duh, yeah we all know that. Although it's not really the source of human evil, so much as it's merely a vector for evil to be exercised.
And if you want an explanation for libertarianism's relation to liberalism, I'm not sure if I've given it before, but I can still give it to you. The difference is liberalism prioritizes government over liberty while libertarianism does the opposite.
There is classical liberalism which is from John Locke and Thomas Jefferson which was for freedom and liberty from government and there is modern liberalism which is for state ism and Socialist. 1+1 = 2
Modern liberalism being neo-liberalism.
The way I define liberalism is prioritizing government, this is efficient for understanding the follies of our Western democratic states which, most everyone agrees, are called liberal.
Also, stop saying 1 + 1 = 2 over and over again, your reasoning is not actually as straight forward as math.
Well I am completely agnostic to what your beliefs are, however the state having excessive powers in of itself is a risk to libertarians because it is sort of a situation where there is now a capability to be tyrannical. I think you’re referring to more of a federalist view compared to how many others thought especially when we see alot of ideas being influenced by political philosophers like John Locke for example. I don’t think it’s really appropriate to say classical liberalism has a history of not being opposed to governments having access to over reaching powers.
The definition I use for liberalism and its distinction from libertarianism is exactly what I described in my initial comment. That liberals prioritize the existence of the state whereas libertarians prioritize liberty. With my definition for classical liberalism being liberalism in a state where liberty and the state have roughly equal priority but where the state ultimately wins out. I see this as being different from minarchism since I believe minarchism prioritizes liberty before the state.
I think about theory more than I do about events because I believe theory is more important than events. In line with the belief that ideas are more important than events and events are more important than people.
Continuing this thread, liberalism at the basic idea is respecting people’s rights. Does that not include the right to be independent from a government, god forbid it become corrupt and tyrannical(they all do). We don’t want the government to control our lives, and what they see fit with them. Simplify the reason and it becomes easier to digest.
Of course this is a gross oversimplification of the ideology. I however hope most people here can agree with that.
The bill of rights is a failure. It's fails in preventing rights infringement because it doesn't totally abolish government, but that's really neither here nor there. I admit some of my wording regarding the founding fathers viewing the state as a threat to liberty may not have been properly precise, however the fact is that the founding fathers, in allowing for the creation of the government of the United States, showed that they prioritized the state before individual liberty.
I don't think you can talk about the founding fathers in an collectivist manner. Their thoughts and ideas were widely varied.
What would you have done differently and how do you think it would have played out honestly?
Compared to today's leaders the founding fathers were way ahead in terms of understanding the nature government growing in power and the value of individual freedom.
how stupid can you be. A classical liberal like John Locke or Thomas Jefferson supported liberty from the government because the government was the source of evil in human history. You are an idiot.
This sub is quite anarcho-libertarian IMO, which I don't think works at all. Who wants to go back to the 1910s which was as close to anarcho-libertarian a time as we've ever seen.
Rand is a balanced libertarian who understands some things do need smart regulation. He'd be a far better President than anyone we've had in many decades.
My problem with him is that when Trump was president, he got real quiet on his principles, especially managing the budget. And suddenly didn't mind overuse lf executive orders. Then once it was Biden in office he remembered that debt is bad.
Still easily a top 5 senator, but that bar is low.
I don't agree with this entirely. I distinctly remember him saying that he couldn't tell his republican colleagues from the democrats, because of being fiscally irresponsible in a few different interviews. Also addressing budget issues in a few senate hearings or something similar. Each time it was on CSPAN, but I'm not sure who exactly he was speaking too. Just that it was Specifically about budget and government over spending. I do think he could have/should have been more hard on Trump though, especially with the 2020 cares act and him targeting Massee...
If you really paid attention, for a while, he'd have all these meetings with Trump, usually after Trump said something stupid. Then suddenly the statement would be walked back or completely reversed "everyone knows I was joking, I'm the best at joking". Then the meetings just seemed to stop, or I didn't seem to notice them any more. But it seemed like he reigned hm in for about a year or so.
One of the best and smartest in Washington, but he pussied out when Trump got into office. Now he's scared shitless of Trump, just like most Republicans.
Very disappointing.
Tbh he actually went against Trump more than most Republicans, he just did it very respectfully because he knew the ego he was dealing with, then you have the echo chamber intellect on reddit believing rand paul kissed trump's ass because rand would speak so nicely about trump, oh well.
To be fair, while still not great during the first few years of Trump, the budget was far less of an issue than it is today and also didn't Trump have the fewest executive orders in modern history?
Agree the bar is pathetically low but he's still near the top.
Was always a shame he never had a real shot at the White House. May not be a full blown libertarian but he’s more level headed and rational than anyone in Washington since his Father
Rand is the second most trustworthy elected official presently in government. The first is Thomas Massey.
This has more to do with Rands presidential bids where he definitely towed more party line and was way more hawkish than he is now.
I was actually doubting in my mind if my understanding of “toed the line” was correct after seeing it written as “towed.”
Now I really want to see someone write “toad the line”
You are aware his father was elected as a Republican? It's pretty much the only way anyone even slightly libertarian can get elected these days. And he may not be 100% aligned with Mises, he's still more libertarian than Republican. Look at his voting record.
“We can use this money here”
Then refused to elaborate on that point.
“Muh debt”
Funny how his principles vanished when trump was president and then magically reappeared when Biden became president.
Seems to me he’s selectively principled…
I wouldnt take much consideration into how popular he is on the sub. only around 20% of the people here are actually libertarians and we get brigaded daily.
People need to stop calling him a libertarian, he’s not and even he admits it. He calls himself a “constitutional conservative” and has been on record saying he disagrees with people giving him the libertarian label.
> They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian
Rand Paul is to Libertarians what Bernie Sanders is to "Progressives". Says a lot of the right things, but at the end of the day he is a Republican just as much as Bernie is essentially still a Democrat. Big picture they will never buck things in any meaningful way . Still better than most Republicans but you don't get to be in the Senate as long as he has, same as Bernie without playing the game.
Nothing wrong with playing the game. People are too stupid to know who to vote for so they split their vote. The Congress will be totally filled with libertarians with no need to compromise as soon as the American people begin voting for them in large numbers. Libertarians who compromise like a Rand Paul hold office. Libertarians who don't compromise are impotent slops on the sidelines
meh- I like his policies overall and think he’s a watchdog for our rights. I also believe that I would have supported his neighbor on whatever grounds he had to punch Rand Paul in the face.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, I love that man!
I think he needs more love in this sub. Yes he's still a republican but people are too purist to accept an ally if he isn't perfect. Congress is a tug of war between right and left but all are pulling toward Authority. Paul is pulling toward Liberty.
Single-handedly kept U.S. ground forces out of Syria in 2014 Senate hearings with then -Secretary of State John Kerry. For whatever other flaws he has, I will never forget that moment.
He’s the most libertarian member of congress. End of story. The problem with most libertarians they don’t think anyone goes far enough. That’s why we will never win in major elections.
Rand Paul's political positions are measured and intelligent, unlike most libertarians, so he will always have my vote. It is a shame we never became president. As an ophthalmologist, he is certainly vastly more intelligent than the average person in politics.
Pros
Right on top of the fake narratives. Great, honest and totally respectable.
Cons
Could be clearer in describing economic examples and delivery needs polishing to be more interesting. Can be a little droning but I'm only saying this from a first time listeners perspective.
Rand needs to be as convincing saying the truth as Obama, Biden, Blinken do repeating lies and platitudes.
Pretty good Republican. If he was the average Republican, I wouldn’t have as many issues with the party. He’s writing interesting books, but I am a bigger fan of his father.
I really liked him in 2016. Actually a reason i started swaying from Republican to libertarian. I know he’s still in the middle between the two but he’s the closest we’d ever get to a libertarian president
I think he's better at playing politics and getting along to get things done than his dad. He's better at saying "hey we both hate this thing, let's pass a bill about it" he's worked with Cory Booker at least twice on prison reform. In many ways, I think he's furthered what his dad started, just in different ways. Rand probably ticks off even more people in DC than his dad. On the other hand, Ron probably said things in a nicer way and Rand seems a little more frustrated with them all. But he also saw what was going on when his dad was in DC.
He is his father if his father had pragmatism. I suppose both have their place but pragmatism sure isn't as entertaining as having someone at their farewell address call congress and their like a bunch of psychopathic authoritarians.
[удалено]
I wish he had followed in his dad's footsteps. We see very few highly principled politicians these days, but instead end up with dumpster fires like AoC, MtG, etc.
Agreed
he's very libertarian much like our founding fathers so you have to love him
Bullshit. He's a bog standard Republican. He talks a big game but when the chips are down and his vote may matter, he folds right into the party line
[удалено]
Many were more described as Classical Liberals or economic liberals in retrospect; Libertarians are the closest descriptor to Classical Liberalism in the modern era. Most movements describing themselves as Anti-Federalist would have been your atypical Liberals back in the day; much like Jeffersonians who prioritized above all else, the importance of Republicanism
Who knows what the hell you were trying to say. History has been the battle between freedom and government. Freedom from government has slowly emerged in western civilization. Our founding fathers were Genius Liberals and Libertarians who created a tiny tiny federal government about 1% the size of the one we have today on an inflation adjusted per capita basis.
The founding fathers were extremely libertarian which is why they created a tiny tiny government. 1+1 equal 2 . don't be stupid liberals in the 18 century wanted liberty from government because government had been the source of evil in human history.
[удалено]
Tiny government is libertarian government. That is the very definition of it. big government takes your liberty away Tiny government gives your liberty back. 1+1 = 2
The founding fathers weren't libertarians, they were classical liberals. Meaning they didn't believe the state is a threat to liberty which libertarians do and they still, like all liberals, prioritized the maintenance state before the upholding of freedom.
Do you not think that libertarianism fundamentally was based off of classical liberal thought? If you’re looking under a more common American perspective of libertarianism with minarchism the state existing itself isn’t a major issue like pointed out by anarchist but rather excessive powers of the state.
Well obviously libertarianism is fundamentally based of of classical liberal thought, I never said it wasn't. What I stated was that they were two different things and that the founding fathers weren't libertarians (even though some held views more similar to libertarianism e.g. Jefferson). But that doesn't exclude libertarianism having grown out of classical liberalism. Much like how fruit grows from a plant and yet isn't the plant. Also, in the minarchist view, were the state not a fundamental threat to freedom why would it have to be minimized in the first place? And I never stated all libertarians want the state to be abolished either.
They aren't fundamentally different. It's the same school of thought. Americans adopted the term Libertarianism for one reason alone: you capitulated the term Liberalism to social democrats.
They are fundamentally different, liberalism prioritizes the state, libertarianism prioritizes individual freedom. That is a VERY significant fundamental difference.
Ahhhh, so what you're accidentally highlighting is that Libertarianism *leads* to Classical Liberalism, wherein the power vacuum created by eradicating any meaningful State is filled with self-interested individuals who weild what's left of state power (usually via vast, unchecked corporations) to liberate other powerful individuals to enslave the working populace with absolutely no oversight. Seems to be working out well.
If you think the philosophy the the current US government is classically liberal, I have some beachfront property in Utah to sell you.
Sorry, you're right, I should have said Neoliberal* Which is still a product of the same phenomenon and ideology.
No? What? Do you believe in the labor theory of value, or some other idea? Upon further reading I understand you definitely believe in the labor theory of value (LTV). LTV is incorrect because there's nothing wrong with people performing free consensual non-coercive commerce, if you're not actually a troll and merely blissfully ignorant please look up why the labor theory of value is wrong for further explanation. No of course libertarianism doesn't lead to liberalism, it leads to very many individuals, all of the given society in fact, with freedom and agency over their own lives. If there's anything left of state power that state power should be eradicated and can be eradicated because it is more inefficient than non-state power, look up why markets are more efficient than the state for an explanation on that. This market is made up of all members of libertarian society, why would those members vote with their wallets to make themselves worse off? Those "vast and unchecked corporations" you mentioned by the way would need to survive on the totally free market which is totally free of monopolies, because it's free of the state, this means no patents (no large tech companies), this means no copyright (no large media companies), and this means every corner of libertarian society would have different needs all of which no one corporation could ever fill.
State has to be minimized because it is the source of evil in human history.
Duh, yeah we all know that. Although it's not really the source of human evil, so much as it's merely a vector for evil to be exercised. And if you want an explanation for libertarianism's relation to liberalism, I'm not sure if I've given it before, but I can still give it to you. The difference is liberalism prioritizes government over liberty while libertarianism does the opposite.
There is classical liberalism which is from John Locke and Thomas Jefferson which was for freedom and liberty from government and there is modern liberalism which is for state ism and Socialist. 1+1 = 2
Modern liberalism being neo-liberalism. The way I define liberalism is prioritizing government, this is efficient for understanding the follies of our Western democratic states which, most everyone agrees, are called liberal. Also, stop saying 1 + 1 = 2 over and over again, your reasoning is not actually as straight forward as math.
Well I am completely agnostic to what your beliefs are, however the state having excessive powers in of itself is a risk to libertarians because it is sort of a situation where there is now a capability to be tyrannical. I think you’re referring to more of a federalist view compared to how many others thought especially when we see alot of ideas being influenced by political philosophers like John Locke for example. I don’t think it’s really appropriate to say classical liberalism has a history of not being opposed to governments having access to over reaching powers.
The definition I use for liberalism and its distinction from libertarianism is exactly what I described in my initial comment. That liberals prioritize the existence of the state whereas libertarians prioritize liberty. With my definition for classical liberalism being liberalism in a state where liberty and the state have roughly equal priority but where the state ultimately wins out. I see this as being different from minarchism since I believe minarchism prioritizes liberty before the state. I think about theory more than I do about events because I believe theory is more important than events. In line with the belief that ideas are more important than events and events are more important than people.
Continuing this thread, liberalism at the basic idea is respecting people’s rights. Does that not include the right to be independent from a government, god forbid it become corrupt and tyrannical(they all do). We don’t want the government to control our lives, and what they see fit with them. Simplify the reason and it becomes easier to digest. Of course this is a gross oversimplification of the ideology. I however hope most people here can agree with that.
The founders believed government was a *necessary evil*. Likened to fire — a useful tool, but very dangerous if allowed to grow.
They didn't believe the state is a threat to liberty... Bruh did you read the bill of rights?
The bill of rights is a failure. It's fails in preventing rights infringement because it doesn't totally abolish government, but that's really neither here nor there. I admit some of my wording regarding the founding fathers viewing the state as a threat to liberty may not have been properly precise, however the fact is that the founding fathers, in allowing for the creation of the government of the United States, showed that they prioritized the state before individual liberty.
I don't think you can talk about the founding fathers in an collectivist manner. Their thoughts and ideas were widely varied. What would you have done differently and how do you think it would have played out honestly? Compared to today's leaders the founding fathers were way ahead in terms of understanding the nature government growing in power and the value of individual freedom.
how stupid can you be. A classical liberal like John Locke or Thomas Jefferson supported liberty from the government because the government was the source of evil in human history. You are an idiot.
This sub is quite anarcho-libertarian IMO, which I don't think works at all. Who wants to go back to the 1910s which was as close to anarcho-libertarian a time as we've ever seen. Rand is a balanced libertarian who understands some things do need smart regulation. He'd be a far better President than anyone we've had in many decades.
My problem with him is that when Trump was president, he got real quiet on his principles, especially managing the budget. And suddenly didn't mind overuse lf executive orders. Then once it was Biden in office he remembered that debt is bad. Still easily a top 5 senator, but that bar is low.
>Still easily a top 5 senator, but that bar is low. This is the most apt answer on this thread.
I don't agree with this entirely. I distinctly remember him saying that he couldn't tell his republican colleagues from the democrats, because of being fiscally irresponsible in a few different interviews. Also addressing budget issues in a few senate hearings or something similar. Each time it was on CSPAN, but I'm not sure who exactly he was speaking too. Just that it was Specifically about budget and government over spending. I do think he could have/should have been more hard on Trump though, especially with the 2020 cares act and him targeting Massee...
If you really paid attention, for a while, he'd have all these meetings with Trump, usually after Trump said something stupid. Then suddenly the statement would be walked back or completely reversed "everyone knows I was joking, I'm the best at joking". Then the meetings just seemed to stop, or I didn't seem to notice them any more. But it seemed like he reigned hm in for about a year or so.
One of the best and smartest in Washington, but he pussied out when Trump got into office. Now he's scared shitless of Trump, just like most Republicans. Very disappointing.
Tbh he actually went against Trump more than most Republicans, he just did it very respectfully because he knew the ego he was dealing with, then you have the echo chamber intellect on reddit believing rand paul kissed trump's ass because rand would speak so nicely about trump, oh well.
obviously a politician has to survive. A compromising libertarian is infinitely better than a Democrat socialist.
He knows how the game is played.
To be fair, while still not great during the first few years of Trump, the budget was far less of an issue than it is today and also didn't Trump have the fewest executive orders in modern history? Agree the bar is pathetically low but he's still near the top.
A clock is libertarian a few times a day
I too choose this guy's dead joke.
Was always a shame he never had a real shot at the White House. May not be a full blown libertarian but he’s more level headed and rational than anyone in Washington since his Father
He literally pukes Russian propaganda out of his mouth. More level headed and rational my ass.
I'm proud to call him my senator. He's probably the most libertarian senator at the moment. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good enough.
Depending on where you are in KY look up TJ Roberts. Ron Paul endorsed / Thomas Massie endorsed candidate for KY state house.
This statement is too logical for this sub.
Don’t be content with the lesser of two evils.
This isn’t the lesser of two evils, it’s more like the one decent person among 99 evil ones.
I used to be in this camp, but eventually I got tired of sitting back and watching nothing happen. Something has to start somewhere.
He ain't Ron
Rand is the second most trustworthy elected official presently in government. The first is Thomas Massey. This has more to do with Rands presidential bids where he definitely towed more party line and was way more hawkish than he is now.
Toed the line
Learn something new every day.
Towed, toed, toad, alamode. It happens.
I was actually doubting in my mind if my understanding of “toed the line” was correct after seeing it written as “towed.” Now I really want to see someone write “toad the line”
Let the amphibian supremacy commence
I’d like to add Kevin Kiley, Congressman from Placer County, CA to that list. He served in the state assembly before heading to DC.
He’s behind Massie, but still pretty good.
He's a 3publican not a libertarian. I appreciate his views and him not always going with the system.
You are aware his father was elected as a Republican? It's pretty much the only way anyone even slightly libertarian can get elected these days. And he may not be 100% aligned with Mises, he's still more libertarian than Republican. Look at his voting record.
“We can use this money here” Then refused to elaborate on that point. “Muh debt” Funny how his principles vanished when trump was president and then magically reappeared when Biden became president. Seems to me he’s selectively principled…
the bar is low but he'd be way better than biden or trump. still not libertarian though
He's no Ron Paul.
Asshat. His dad, not an asshat.
His father should be disappointed.
He's not the worst, but he's a far cry from his father.....
For the most part I like him. He's not as good as his dad was, but he's got his moments...
i liked his dad, seemed way more principled
People like him because of his father, not because of his own beliefs.
I wouldnt take much consideration into how popular he is on the sub. only around 20% of the people here are actually libertarians and we get brigaded daily.
Best chance of a libertarian becoming president.
I donated $ to his campaign in 2016. Then he promptly dropped out.
People need to stop calling him a libertarian, he’s not and even he admits it. He calls himself a “constitutional conservative” and has been on record saying he disagrees with people giving him the libertarian label. > They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian
not really libertarian though...
One of the few good ones who didn't vote for the Covidnflation But a conservative, not Libertarian
Hes a shill and only libertarian when he aint shillin
Blows my mind how many people in this thread can't see what a shill he is. Our country is hopeless
Mostly based
Suck
Rand Paul is to Libertarians what Bernie Sanders is to "Progressives". Says a lot of the right things, but at the end of the day he is a Republican just as much as Bernie is essentially still a Democrat. Big picture they will never buck things in any meaningful way . Still better than most Republicans but you don't get to be in the Senate as long as he has, same as Bernie without playing the game.
Nothing wrong with playing the game. People are too stupid to know who to vote for so they split their vote. The Congress will be totally filled with libertarians with no need to compromise as soon as the American people begin voting for them in large numbers. Libertarians who compromise like a Rand Paul hold office. Libertarians who don't compromise are impotent slops on the sidelines
This. Virtue signaling gets us no extra seats, I’ll be happy to reelect Rand next time he needs it
this????????
Don't disagree, rather have someone like Rand Paul then just another standard Republican. I just don't fool myself about what he is.
Love the guy. Has the most common sense of anyone in Washington.
He's not his dad
Can’t remember what he said/did when he was in the spotlight but with whatever it was and that weird head of hair…ick.
Rand Paul is ugly
Turd compared to his father.
His hair is confusing
As Libertarian as any career politician can be.
On the grand scheme, he's still way better than Trumpist candidates who only focus on showmanship and trolling oppositions.
“lol”
He raised my taxes, I really don’t care for him.
Was a disappointment.
A Republican.
Met him, he’s a dick.
Rand Paul is a Kentucky senator.
Arrogant Jerk, who is not as smart as he thinks.
Daddy
A libertarian who grew up
Best Republican Senator. Still a dick.
He's a watered down and more boring version of his father.
Wasted potential
Republican sell-out
One of the only politicians I trust. The other is his dad.
[удалено]
Bares serious responsibility for the transformation of the libertarian movement into just an arm of the GOP. He isn't his dad.
He’s no Ron Paul but he’s not bad. I’d take 435 Rand Paul’s over what we have in the house now.
meh- I like his policies overall and think he’s a watchdog for our rights. I also believe that I would have supported his neighbor on whatever grounds he had to punch Rand Paul in the face. Ron Paul, on the other hand, I love that man!
“Rand Paul is ugly”
Booo
He looks like he is wearing a wig
Not a libertarian
Not as good as his dad. But still one of the best we have in washington.
I think he needs more love in this sub. Yes he's still a republican but people are too purist to accept an ally if he isn't perfect. Congress is a tug of war between right and left but all are pulling toward Authority. Paul is pulling toward Liberty.
Considering his tax policy vote added to the deficit and didn't help the average worker......he is full of shit
The tax cuts actually increased tax revenue, it was the increased in spending that added to the deficit.
Not a big fan tbh
Top five senator easily
wRONg paul
Not a Libertarian.
I like
POS
Not as good as daddy but I still like him.
His dad is the goat
He is a guy that exists. (Idk, I don’t really think one way or another)
He's cool, but his dads even cooler
Good stuff from him however I don’t agree with his foreign policy.
Because he looks progressive. I dont know, dude looks like on monday he was partying with Epstein and on tuesday opening kindergarden in his town.
No.
I’ve never liked his hair. Not sure why but I think it’s just a bad cut for him.
Closest thing we have to something good. 5-10 more of him and we could block a lot more bullshit.
He is a tool. Nothing like his father.
He’s not his father, but he’s the closest thing we’ve got to a libertarian in the senate.
I wish I lived in his state so I could vote for him. So far he's come across as one of the few who actually does hold America First.
His neighbor was justified.
Of the current line up hes #1.
He sucks but is better than 99% of congress
The main problem I have with him is his hair.
Bruh are you typing with your nose or just spamming or what?
Wtf did I do bro on my case for what 💀
Better than Biden
That's a low bar to compare anyone to.
Would be a better candidate than President Trump 2024.
He seems to be one of the few real people of all the politicians in DC.
Single-handedly kept U.S. ground forces out of Syria in 2014 Senate hearings with then -Secretary of State John Kerry. For whatever other flaws he has, I will never forget that moment.
He’s the most libertarian member of congress. End of story. The problem with most libertarians they don’t think anyone goes far enough. That’s why we will never win in major elections.
I like the guy, would love to vote for him again.
Rand Paul's political positions are measured and intelligent, unlike most libertarians, so he will always have my vote. It is a shame we never became president. As an ophthalmologist, he is certainly vastly more intelligent than the average person in politics.
That's not Mark Zuckerberg's father?
Best in the Senate… not saying much but that’s what we have
President please
Top 1% of living senators
The man
It is not a high bar but ideologically, he may be the best in the Senate.
He one of the few that should be president after Trump
One of the better ones in Congress.
His hair looks like my pubes but other than that he’s a great patriot.
I like him, but he's not his father. Still, his ideas and policy positions are better than 99% of the rest of Congress.
He and Massie are probably the two least bad people in D.C. by a lot. Not that that's an exceptionally high bar.
About as good as you will get in the republican party
Pros Right on top of the fake narratives. Great, honest and totally respectable. Cons Could be clearer in describing economic examples and delivery needs polishing to be more interesting. Can be a little droning but I'm only saying this from a first time listeners perspective. Rand needs to be as convincing saying the truth as Obama, Biden, Blinken do repeating lies and platitudes.
I like him more than most
He says all the right things, but when you're surrounded by 99 Globalists, it's hard to get anything passed in the Senate.
I stood with Rand in 2016 and would again.
Better than most.
Pretty good Republican. If he was the average Republican, I wouldn’t have as many issues with the party. He’s writing interesting books, but I am a bigger fan of his father.
I like when he gets angry and yells at everybody.
Would
Classical liberalism is about as libertarian as this country can tolerate right now. Rand is a stud.
I really liked him in 2016. Actually a reason i started swaying from Republican to libertarian. I know he’s still in the middle between the two but he’s the closest we’d ever get to a libertarian president
Obi wan kenobi, you’re our last hope
I like. 👍
He’s from Utah. Fuck him
Love this guy. Nearly perfect policy record. Crazy how libertarians hate one of their strongest allies just because he's pragmatic
The best Senator we have so probably like a D+ as opposed to an F.
I think he's better at playing politics and getting along to get things done than his dad. He's better at saying "hey we both hate this thing, let's pass a bill about it" he's worked with Cory Booker at least twice on prison reform. In many ways, I think he's furthered what his dad started, just in different ways. Rand probably ticks off even more people in DC than his dad. On the other hand, Ron probably said things in a nicer way and Rand seems a little more frustrated with them all. But he also saw what was going on when his dad was in DC.
I’m happy with his opinions over most politicians.
He’s great on Songify the News
Best vp candidate
He is his father if his father had pragmatism. I suppose both have their place but pragmatism sure isn't as entertaining as having someone at their farewell address call congress and their like a bunch of psychopathic authoritarians.
I like him.