• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anyone want to bet how Rand Paul votes?

The Senator from Irrelevant wants so badly to matter again.
 
Saladin4 said:
He'll stomp and stammer...Then vote with trump...It is what he does
Click to expand...

“Squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

Unless the squeaky wheel needs replacing........
 
Rand will be back to polishing Trump's balls soon enough.

trump-rand-paul.jpg
 
Trump spoke with Barr about representing him in the Mueller investigation, which means that Barr would almost certainly have to recuse himself from overseeing Mueller.

If Trump ever figures that out he'll probably try to nominate somebody else.
 
I won't wager on how Paul votes, but I will posit that he won't allow himself to be a named person who has a pivotal impact on whether Barr be confirmed or not confirmed.


Rand Paul has declared "very, very troubling" the prospect of Barr's Atty. Generalship. His reasons for that assertion are:
  • Paul's belief that Barr favors "expanding the government’s ability to spy on Americans. Paul bases his inference in this regard on Barr's having supported the Patriot Act and Barr's having stated that the Patriot Act ought to "go much further."
    • Xelor: Mind you, Paul doesn't identify the nature and extent of what Barr meant by "go much further."

      I don't know what specifically Barr meant by that remark, so I'm not going to pass judgment on his having made it. Neither do I know what Paul thinks Barr specifically meant and thus that Paul objects to.
  • Paul's discomfiture with Barr's support of the civil asset forfeiture doctrine applied in law enforcement actions.
    • Xelor: That is a doctrine with which I'm familiar enough to know I too don't cotton to its use/implementation in cases where no arrest, indictment or conviction results from LEO's undertakings. Unsatisfactory, therefore, is Barr's forbearance of LEOs exercising civil asset forfeiture in the noted scenarios.


According to the rubric article, Paul stated, "I haven’t made a decision yet on him." Well, okay; however, to my eyes (ears) that sounds like the equivocal BS many pols utter so as to give themselves "wiggle room" to later act in ways diametrically opposite to whatever it be to which they first aired objections. As my dad would have said, "If that's how a politician expresses himself and later behaves, the person had better be a woman." (He was referring to the ridiculous adage about a woman's prerogative to change her mind...as Dad's remarks suggest, he was not at all respectful of "thinking out loud.")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom