Sean F Kennedy Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Rand Paul v Charles Booker who narrowly lost the primary in 2020 to Amy McGrath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean F Kennedy Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 8 minutes ago, Patine said: I think that @jvikings1 had said a few times that Paul wasn't running again. Nope he’s running again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 16 hours ago, Patine said: I think that @jvikings1 had said a few times that Paul wasn't running again. He’s running again. I questioned if he would or not (due to his support for term limits). But I am very happy that he decided to go for a 3rd term (and probably his last). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fbarbarossa Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 I think Rand Paul running again is quite hypocritical. He expressed support for term limits and said he would only serve two terms but now he's running for a third 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, Fbarbarossa said: I think Rand Paul running again is quite hypocritical. He expressed support for term limits and said he would only serve two terms but now he's running for a third He did not say he would only serve two terms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fbarbarossa Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, jvikings1 said: He did not say he would only serve two terms True he didn't say, but he signed a pledge to term limits which would limit a senator to two terms 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezi Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Fbarbarossa said: True he didn't say, but he signed a pledge to term limits which would limit a senator to two terms It is hypocritical but there isn’t anything wrong with it. He thinks that you shouldn’t be able to serve more than 2 terms but that doesn’t mean that you can’t take advantage of the law not existing. Similarly to how Marx and Engels both invested in the stock market. You might not like the system, but you can (and should) still take advantage of the existing system. rand Paul still sucks monkey butts tho Edited January 12, 2022 by Rezi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 19 hours ago, Fbarbarossa said: True he didn't say, but he signed a pledge to term limits which would limit a senator to two terms The pledge was to support a term limits amendment (which he has done). However, the logic behind staying on is as follows: Politicians against term limits will stay on as long as they want. If politicians who support term limits are constantly leaving, there will never be 2/3rds of Congress who support term limits (needed for an amendment). Thus, politicians self term limiting themselves would be counterproductive be the ultimate goal of establishing term limits. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pringles Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 23 minutes ago, jvikings1 said: The pledge was to support a term limits amendment (which he has done). However, the logic behind staying on is as follows: Politicians against term limits will stay on as long as they want. If politicians who support term limits are constantly leaving, there will never be 2/3rds of Congress who support term limits (needed for an amendment). Thus, politicians self term limiting themselves would be counterproductive be the ultimate goal of establishing term limits. I can't stand Rand Paul and I "hate" him just as much as anybody really. 😛 But the point here is valid. Although I do wonder if the justification on his own part, is credible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fbarbarossa Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 32 minutes ago, jvikings1 said: The pledge was to support a term limits amendment (which he has done). However, the logic behind staying on is as follows: Politicians against term limits will stay on as long as they want. If politicians who support term limits are constantly leaving, there will never be 2/3rds of Congress who support term limits (needed for an amendment). Thus, politicians self term limiting themselves would be counterproductive be the ultimate goal of establishing term limits. Fair enough point, I personally am just a believer in leading by example and principle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 8 minutes ago, Pringles said: I can't stand Rand Paul and I "hate" him just as much as anybody really. 😛 Well, outside of his neighbor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pringles Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 1 minute ago, jvikings1 said: Well, outside of his neighbor 😛 Curious on your thoughts of how big the margin will be when he goes against Booker. Booker being the Democratic nominee makes me disappointingly support Rand Paul. But I can see Paul's vote share hitting 60 to 65 percent against someone like Booker who is way out of line with Kentucky politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 3 hours ago, Pringles said: 😛 Curious on your thoughts of how big the margin will be when he goes against Booker. Booker being the Democratic nominee makes me disappointingly support Rand Paul. But I can see Paul's vote share hitting 60 to 65 percent against someone like Booker who is way out of line with Kentucky politics. 60% would be a great target to hit as a Republican has only hit that mark once (McConnell in 2002 against a relatively nobody candidate). It'll be tough to beat Trump's coattails where he got 62%. However, Rand does benefit from having an extremely unpopular Democratic president and an unpopular Democratic governor. And he is much more popular in the state than Mitch is (who got just under 58% in 2020). I'd say 57.5% is probably the floor with the low 60s as the ceiling. You are certainly right about Booker. He'll be popular in the urban centers of Jefferson and Fayette Counties. But his style is out of touch with everything else (suburban areas of Jefferson and Fayette, other urban/suburban areas, and rural areas). There's a chance this might cause a backlash vote allowing Rand to get higher in the 60s. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pringles Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 40 minutes ago, jvikings1 said: 60% would be a great target to hit as a Republican has only hit that mark once (McConnell in 2002 against a relatively nobody candidate). It'll be tough to beat Trump's coattails where he got 62%. However, Rand does benefit from having an extremely unpopular Democratic president and an unpopular Democratic governor. And he is much more popular in the state than Mitch is (who got just under 58% in 2020). I'd say 57.5% is probably the floor with the low 60s as the ceiling. You are certainly right about Booker. He'll be popular in the urban centers of Jefferson and Fayette Counties. But his style is out of touch with everything else (suburban areas of Jefferson and Fayette, other urban/suburban areas, and rural areas). There's a chance this might cause a backlash vote allowing Rand to get higher in the 60s. The Political Process has spoken and given Rand Paul 63.2% to 36.8% in a election simulation I made. 😛 I definitely think the county map is right on lmao. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pringles Posted January 14, 2022 Share Posted January 14, 2022 1 minute ago, Patine said: Too bad a lot of those counties have the population of an off-season seaside resort town... Indeed 😛 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 @Pringles https://www.wtvq.com/content/uploads/2022/01/n/i/KY122Poll.pdf Here’s the first poll on the race that’s been released. I’m a little skeptical because I highly doubt Beshear’s approval is at 60% (there’s just so little evidence to support such a number). But at the same time, the senate race shows a sizeable difference between the 2. Booker only wins in the Louisville Metro-area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pringles Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 minute ago, jvikings1 said: @Pringles https://www.wtvq.com/content/uploads/2022/01/n/i/KY122Poll.pdf Here’s the first poll on the race that’s been released. I’m a little skeptical because I highly doubt Beshear’s approval is at 60% (there’s just so little evidence to support such a number). But at the same time, the senate race shows a sizeable difference between the 2. Booker only wins in the Louisville Metro-area. Interesting. 55-39 for Paul at the moment. 6% Undecideds. So if we take that poll literally Paul could get around 60% if he does extremely well with the remainder. Not bad. Not really surprising too. Also, on Beshear's approval, you think that the recent tornado devastation and recovery efforts are aiding him? That's about all I can think of that I've seen in the news. Not sure about what else is going on in Kentucky politics. Personally I don't mind Beshear, then again, I'm not a Kentuckian so I don't know what the word is on the block. 😛 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 2 minutes ago, Pringles said: Interesting. 55-39 for Paul at the moment. 6% Undecideds. So if we take that poll literally Paul could get around 60% if he does extremely well with the remainder. Not bad. Not really surprising too. Also, on Beshear's approval, you think that the recent tornado devastation and recovery efforts are aiding him? That's about all I can think of that I've seen in the news. Not sure about what else is going on in Kentucky politics. Personally I don't mind Beshear, then again, I'm not a Kentuckian so I don't know what the word is on the block. 😛 Correct. I’d expect this to be a base number for him. And there’s a decent shot he’s a little higher if my suspicions about the poll are correct. Beshear is likely benefiting from a disaster boost, but it is still hard to see that getting all the way up to 60%. It’s especially hard to believe that 40% of Republicans approve of his job. His lockdowns were not popular, especially amongst R voters. And he will most definitely get attacked during the election next year for sending cops to churches on Easter Sunday. He’s also proudly pro-abortion (not something that wins you points in KY). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaHale Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 3 hours ago, Patine said: What was this about? I haven't heard anything in any news outlet I read. I don't think anyone is, "pro-abortion." This label implies actively encouraging abortions to happen, and promoting the procedure as a good thing. Even the most fervent pro-choice types are not of that sort, at all. They do view every abortion as a grim and dire thing that should not happen, and does have definite, negative repercussions, but with the view that the woman carrying the child is the one who makes the choice (hence, "pro-choice,") in the end, and not the state or moralistic groups. That is the belief behind the pro-choice side of the debate. "Pro-abortion," sounds like something a Simpsons (or, better, yet, South Park or Family Guy) political figure would push, or someone as mad and wonky as a Batman villain. Get a grip here, @jvikings1! Ok fine. “Anti-life” is more accurate then 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaHale Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 Trololololol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaHale Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Patine said: No, that's more in line with a lot of Republican policies OUTSIDE of abortion. 😈 Maybe so. I’m not a Republican. I have a consistent life ethic (pro-life, anti-war, anti-death penalty, and so forth). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timur Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 6 hours ago, Patine said: I don't think anyone is, "pro-abortion." Among pro choice folks some aren't, some are. And then, there is this woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Farrar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 6 hours ago, Patine said: What was this about? I haven't heard anything in any news outlet I read. Beshear sent cops to churches on Easter Sunday to intimate worshipers and write down license plate numbers. Meanwhile, one could still shop at a liquor store as well as Wal-Mart/Kroger. KY Governor Beshear Sued for Targeting Churches - Liberty Counsel (lc.org) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Patine said: Although such draconian and insidious tactics are unbecoming of responsible and accountable government, the fact remains that Freedom of Religion - one of the enshrined and inalienable conceived, among many others, during the Enlightenment, that have collectively become a foundational pillar of Western civilization and jurisprudence - does not actually guarantee a right to exercise said freedom in one's accustomed place of worship inviolably, necessarily. Freedom of Religion in American Constitutional law is given the Strict Scrutiny test. It means measures must be the least restrictive means and must be neutral. The fact that secular activities were allowed to operate in-person (grocery stores, liquor stores, abortion clinics) meant the restrictions were not neutral and thus in violation of the 1st Amendment (illegal). Edited January 29, 2022 by jvikings1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvikings1 Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 4 minutes ago, Patine said: I personally believe the liquor store lobby is just very powerful in a lot North America, and capable of levying significant bribes to politicians. Liquor stores were the first to reopen after hard lockdown here, too. Liquor stores, in most U.S. States and Canadian Provinces got themselves exempted from the Blue Laws before most other establishments (although churches, obviously, were always a counter-example, there). Grocery stores are a matter of necessity, which pragmatically overrides liberty in terms of providing availability (and in most other senses - dead people are NOT free by mortal reckoning), so that is actually understandable. Whatever the reason for them being open, it still means that the same standard must be applied to churches. And if not, then the restriction is not neutral (which then fails the strict scrutiny test). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.