Now keep in mind as your reading this Rand Paul is one of two names EVERYONE just assumes is running for president in 2016 (the other being Hilary Clinton) and the only Republican. There are other names being tossed around, (Jindal, O'Malley, Cruz, Rubio, Biden, Cuomo, Christie ect) but they are just possibilities, unlike Paul who is assumed to be a lock to run. And people will likely support him during his 2016 run
Which is a bit of a problem, seeing as how Rand Paul has a very bad habit of not understanding his own political positions, let alone anything else.
For starters, we have his most recent thing he didnt understand, namely how "rights" work. Now since I just did a bit on that 2 weeks ago, I'll let you go and read that and not recopy it here (tip search for Rand Paul and/or "where the fuck is my gun") I would like to add though as another example of his misunderstanding how rights work this second quote
"With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.
I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be."
You know in the previous blog I linked to I pointed out how the inherent contradiction in the "right to free speech" and the "right to remain silent" might create a problem under Rand Pauls definition in how rights function (that you are forced to do it). I'm starting to think if anyone ever asked Rand Paul to explain how both those rights can coexist in his understanding of rights his brain would overload and his head would actually explode.
But his problems of not understanding his own opinions go much deeper than that. For example when Rand Paul first came to national prominence it was due to the 13 hour "old school/talking" filibuster he led against drone killings of Americans.
Quoting the key point of that filibuster Senator Paul said:
“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."
Now here's the thing, constitutionally Rand Paul is 100% correct here, and as a constitutional libertarian that is exactly the position he should take.
Which was a bit of a problem a few months later after the Boston Bombing, when discussing if drones could have been used to prevent that attack and/or apprehend the bombers when Paul said this:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
Now not only is that a contradiction, since apparently in some cases the government can kill without first charging you with a crime and without first being found guilty by a court, it also shockingly shows Rand Paul doesnt actually know what a drone is.
See drones are basically computer guided missiles. Which means they explode on impact. Thats actually one other controversial parts of drone usage, we tend to kill a fair amount of innocent people, who happen to be standing near someone/some place targeted by drones.
So yea lets assume we did use a drone on this dude with $50 and a weapon, we WOULD kill everyone in the store he just robbed, and likely the stores on either side of it, even though its not clear the guy with the money and weapon actually committed a crime. turns out in a bunch of states its totally legal to carry a weapon into a liquor store....so maybe this guy lives in one of those states and the $50 is his change on his purchase.
So, to sum up Rand Paul's opinion: it's unconstitutional to kill an american citizen on american soil with a drone.....unless you know, you really want to.
Nor is that the ONLY one of his own opinions Rand Paul doesnt understand.
When running for Senate, Rand Paul penned an article defending his rational for being opposed to the Americans with Disabilities Act. From the Op-ed:
"Now the media is twisting my small government message, making me out to be a crusader for repeal of the Americans for Disabilities Act and The Fair Housing Act. Again, this is patently untrue. I have simply pointed out areas within these broad federal laws that have financially burdened many smaller businesses.
For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability? Wouldn’t it be better to allow that business to give a handicapped employee a ground floor office? We need more businesses and jobs, not fewer."
So everyone got that right, we need to tweak or get rid of the ADA because it unfairly forces non cost effective things like elevators in two story buildings.
yea about that, quoting from the ADA itself:
"(b) Elevator
Subsection (a) of this section shall not be construed to require the installation of an elevator for facilities that are less than three stories or have less than 3,000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider or unless the Attorney General determines that a particular category of such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on the usage of such facilities."
Yea, turns out the exact example Rand Paul has used as the reason to repeal the ADA is actually EXPLICITLY not required by the ADA.
Friedman would probably be pretty good, too, and he’s not an Austrian, but he would be better than what we have.
Dead, too.Yeah. Let’s just go with dead, because then you probably really wouldn’t have much of a functioning Federal Reserve.
Subsection (a) of this section shall not be construed to require the installation of an elevator for facilities that are less than three stories or have less than 3,000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider or unless the Attorney General determines that a particular category of such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on the usage of such facilities."
So, to sum up Rand Paul's opinion: We need to look into tweaking or repealing a law because the law might require someone to do something the law expressly says they dont have to do.
Next up on our list, The Department of Education.
Like his father Ron Paul, Rand Paul would really like to do away with the Department of Education and return control of the Curriculum to the states. Or and Senator Paul put it:
" I would rather the local schools decide things. I don’t like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergartner at school. That’s what happens when we let things get to a federal level. I think I would rather have local school boards, teachers, parents, people in Paduka deciding about your schools and not have it in Washington."
The problem? well it turns out, determining curriculum isnt what the US Department of Education does. In fact they are prohibited from doingt so by law
"No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88)"
So yea, who exactly is responsible for deciding that "Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergartner at school."? That would be the Local School Board and/or State Board of Education. In other words the very people Rand Paul believes should gain more power.
So, to sum up Rand Paul's opinion: Schools are teaching my kids things I object to, so we should do away with a group that has nothing to do with that so we can give the people who are actually responsible even more power to teach things to my kids I find objectionable.
Next up on the list of things Rand Paul doenst understand, the role of the United States Supreme Court, After the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare Paul said this:
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."
Actually yes, thats actually EXACTLY what the supreme court does, they gather to decide if a given law is constitutional. Thats kinda why they exist.
Now to be fair, Rand Paul is half correct, the Supreme Court ruling does nothing to make the law RIGHT, just to make it legal. Because Morality is subjective and therefore cant be ruled on.
For senator Paul's sake though, with his theory that everything that is Constitutional is also "right" I hope no one ever asks him if slavery was right prior to 1864.........
Next up, the Budget.
According to a spokesman for the candidate Paul as senator Rand Paul "will vote against and filibuster any unbalanced budget proposal in the Senate."
Next up on our list, The Department of Education.
Like his father Ron Paul, Rand Paul would really like to do away with the Department of Education and return control of the Curriculum to the states. Or and Senator Paul put it:
" I would rather the local schools decide things. I don’t like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergartner at school. That’s what happens when we let things get to a federal level. I think I would rather have local school boards, teachers, parents, people in Paduka deciding about your schools and not have it in Washington."
The problem? well it turns out, determining curriculum isnt what the US Department of Education does. In fact they are prohibited from doingt so by law
"No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. (Section 103[b], Public Law 96-88)"
So yea, who exactly is responsible for deciding that "Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergartner at school."? That would be the Local School Board and/or State Board of Education. In other words the very people Rand Paul believes should gain more power.
So, to sum up Rand Paul's opinion: Schools are teaching my kids things I object to, so we should do away with a group that has nothing to do with that so we can give the people who are actually responsible even more power to teach things to my kids I find objectionable.
Next up on the list of things Rand Paul doenst understand, the role of the United States Supreme Court, After the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare Paul said this:
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."
Actually yes, thats actually EXACTLY what the supreme court does, they gather to decide if a given law is constitutional. Thats kinda why they exist.
Now to be fair, Rand Paul is half correct, the Supreme Court ruling does nothing to make the law RIGHT, just to make it legal. Because Morality is subjective and therefore cant be ruled on.
For senator Paul's sake though, with his theory that everything that is Constitutional is also "right" I hope no one ever asks him if slavery was right prior to 1864.........
Next up, the Budget.
According to a spokesman for the candidate Paul as senator Rand Paul "will vote against and filibuster any unbalanced budget proposal in the Senate."
When asked about his stand on the Budget later as Senator, Rand Paul said this:
"You know, the thing is, people want to say it’s extreme. But what I would say is extreme is a trillion-dollar deficit every year. I mean, that's an extremely bad situation. I would say it's a very reasonable proposition to say that we would only spend what comes in."
now we have two problems: the first is that according to the Senate rules, one of the few restrictions placed on the Filibuster is that you can not filibuster a budget bill. Which is going to make it hard to filibuster those bills.
The second problem revolves around those "trillion dollar deficits" here's a chart of the US deficits dating back to 1975
Notice anything missing? like say Trillion Dollar deficits? the highest deficit on that chart is in 2009, at 1,300 BILLION, or roughly a bit over 1/10th of what Rand Paul thinks the deficit is.
Much like his stand on the ADA, Rand Paul is taking a stand to stop a problem that doesnt actually exist.
Finally we conclude with what has to be the biggest embarrassment of all for Rand Paul, and what should be the biggest red flag for all his supporters out there. It turns out that Rand Paul, the son of Ron "End the Fed" Paul has no understanding AT ALL of economic policies.
A few weeks ago in an interview with Bloomberg Magazine was asked who he would pick to be Fed Chairman, the exchange went a little something like this:
"You know, the thing is, people want to say it’s extreme. But what I would say is extreme is a trillion-dollar deficit every year. I mean, that's an extremely bad situation. I would say it's a very reasonable proposition to say that we would only spend what comes in."
now we have two problems: the first is that according to the Senate rules, one of the few restrictions placed on the Filibuster is that you can not filibuster a budget bill. Which is going to make it hard to filibuster those bills.
The second problem revolves around those "trillion dollar deficits" here's a chart of the US deficits dating back to 1975
 |
| chart from the American Prospect |
Notice anything missing? like say Trillion Dollar deficits? the highest deficit on that chart is in 2009, at 1,300 BILLION, or roughly a bit over 1/10th of what Rand Paul thinks the deficit is.
Much like his stand on the ADA, Rand Paul is taking a stand to stop a problem that doesnt actually exist.
Finally we conclude with what has to be the biggest embarrassment of all for Rand Paul, and what should be the biggest red flag for all his supporters out there. It turns out that Rand Paul, the son of Ron "End the Fed" Paul has no understanding AT ALL of economic policies.
A few weeks ago in an interview with Bloomberg Magazine was asked who he would pick to be Fed Chairman, the exchange went a little something like this:
(Bloomberg Mag):Who would your ideal Fed chairman be?
(Rand Paul:)Hayek would be good, but he’s deceased.
Nondead Fed chairman.(Rand Paul:)Hayek would be good, but he’s deceased.
Friedman would probably be pretty good, too, and he’s not an Austrian, but he would be better than what we have.
Dead, too.Yeah. Let’s just go with dead, because then you probably really wouldn’t have much of a functioning Federal Reserve.
Now I think I've previously busted on Senator Paul for being totally unaware Milton Friedman is dead (died in 2006), but it turns out that isnt actually the problem here, this is. Milton Friedman developed Monetarism.
Monetarism is a fiscal policy that believes in a massively strong actively involved central bank, is absolutely opposed to the gold standard (or any standard) and the consistent printing of more money at a fixed rate in an attempt to control prices of various goods, as well as the belief inflation was basically unpreventable.
In otherwords its pretty much exactly the opposite of standard Paulian libertarian economic thought, including the economic beliefs Rand Paul claims he has. Paul seems totally and utterly unaware of any of this when he suggested Friedmans name, likely on the basis that Friedman did agree with Paul on lowering taxes, and broadly on free markets.
Apparently agreeing on Spending issues to Rand Paul is the exact same as agreeing on ALL economic issues and the role of various economic institutions. Rand Paul doesnt seem to realize their is more to economics than spending. Of course given that the previous example was of how Rand Paul doesnt even understand what the country is actually spending, it might just be a fluke that he agrees with Friedman at all on anything...
You know I'd love to say "and thats the list of things Rand Paul doesnt understand" but I already know there is more out there and/or will be soon, so I guess instead I'm just going to have to say "and thats the list of things I feel like pointing out today, that Rand Paul doesnt understand....more to come soon"
Monetarism is a fiscal policy that believes in a massively strong actively involved central bank, is absolutely opposed to the gold standard (or any standard) and the consistent printing of more money at a fixed rate in an attempt to control prices of various goods, as well as the belief inflation was basically unpreventable.
In otherwords its pretty much exactly the opposite of standard Paulian libertarian economic thought, including the economic beliefs Rand Paul claims he has. Paul seems totally and utterly unaware of any of this when he suggested Friedmans name, likely on the basis that Friedman did agree with Paul on lowering taxes, and broadly on free markets.
Apparently agreeing on Spending issues to Rand Paul is the exact same as agreeing on ALL economic issues and the role of various economic institutions. Rand Paul doesnt seem to realize their is more to economics than spending. Of course given that the previous example was of how Rand Paul doesnt even understand what the country is actually spending, it might just be a fluke that he agrees with Friedman at all on anything...
You know I'd love to say "and thats the list of things Rand Paul doesnt understand" but I already know there is more out there and/or will be soon, so I guess instead I'm just going to have to say "and thats the list of things I feel like pointing out today, that Rand Paul doesnt understand....more to come soon"
Hi to you, too.
ReplyDelete