Talk:Political positions of Rand Paul

Question

What, no talk page? Cwobeel (talk)

US military

In the Afghanistan/Iraq section it says he opposes overseas military. In the following section it says "Unlike his more stridently "non-interventionist" father, Rand sees a role for American armed forces abroad, including in permanent foreign military bases." Those are two contradictory statements (72.203.147.78 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC))

Civil rights/mandatory minimums

People disagree about what constitutes civil rights. (Some more hardcore libertarians -- though apparently not Paul -- would argue that 'civil rights' only equate to property rights, though most Americans disagree; some fundamentalist Christians believe that gay marriage and adoption are not civil rights while LGBT activists disagree; some conservatives argue that affirmative action is "reverse racism" while the NAACP thinks it's a civil rights issue, etc) This is why we should cast a "wide net" in our definition of 'civil rights', defining it in terms of whether sufficient RS call an issue a 'civil right' rather than in terms of whether we, the WP editors, believe that issue is a civil right.

Using this logic, Paul's opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing should be restored. He couches this view in civil rights language by noting the disproportionate affect of the law on African Americans. It's subjective as to whether something is a "civil right", since the term is inherently moralistic. But if enough RS says something is, we should include it under the 'civil rights' section, and let our readers make up their own mind. Steeletrap (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The statement above by steeletrap about libertarians is ridiculous. LIBERTARIANISM in WIkipedia shows 15 or so different schools of LIBERTARIANISM and none of them ""argue that 'civil rights' only equate to property rights" Yet another straw man argument.

Domestic vs Foreign policy

The current split doesn't seem to fit Paul very well, because a lot of items that would be security policy in general he puts a protection of liberties spin on. Can we relabel the sections as "Civil Liberties" and "Economic Policy"? Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Regardless of his Libertarian underpinnings, if he is addressing economy or foreign policy, these should be labelled as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Should this information be added to the marijuana section?

Two links:

1. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/rand-paul-backs-bill-that-could-lead-to-crack-down-on-states-where-voters-legalized-weed/

2. http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/rand-paul-assures-evangelicals-that-he-d

67.250.119.161 (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Abortion reverts

An editor is edit warring by reverting language and only claiming personal opinion that RS sources "interpretations are without proper legal basis and reflect pro-abortion agenda" but provides no RS to back up the claim.

The page Political positions of Rand Paul has the following reference

Ryan Lizza (8 Oct 2014). "Rand Paul's Personhood Problem". New Yorker.

Which states

The bill would ban abortion and grant the unborn all the legal protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, beginning at “the moment of fertilization.

This is similar language to

He has been a sponsor or cosponsor of several legislative measures to effectively ban virtually all abortions by recognizing a legal right to life of human embryos from the moment of fertilization

Paul also stated in a recorded message that he wants to "Congress has the power to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade and end all abortion-on-demand" and "I’m convinced that we can get this bill to the forefront of the American debate — and ultimately outlaw abortion once and for all." There is no POV dispute - Wikipedia serves the information needs of readers - if Paul made comments in the public record that were widely interpreted as meaning he wanted an abortion ban the readers are not well served by whitewashing that or obscuring it in rhetoric.-- Aronzak (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Abortion edit: non-biased language

Original is written as:

He has been a sponsor or cosponsor of several legislative measures to effectively ban virtually all abortions by recognizing a legal right to life of human embryos from the moment of fertilization

Words in bold reflect poor interpretation and use emotion evicting language. See Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research.

There is no disagreement with the New Yorker (or any other provided source) concerning stated material, only with original author's paraphrasing of cited material and its use of language that evicts emotion, causing it to lack a neutral point of view and borders on original research by synthesizing published material in a manner not stated by the original sources.

An initial proposed fix would be:

He has been a sponsor or cosponsor of several legislative measures that recognize a legal right to life of human embryos from the moment of fertilization

However, an alternative would be:

He has been a sponsor or cosponsor of several legislative measures that seek to end abortion and that recognize a legal right to life of human embryos from the moment of fertilization

Smhanes (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be unnecessary whitewashing. His support of specific legislative measures are designed to ban abortion. Also "end abortion" does not make sense without an attribute. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"State doesn't own your children"

I don't know what to make of this sentence, given its context within a discussion of birthright citizenship:

"Paul has also said that the state doesn't own your children."

I don't see the logical relationship between this statement and a discussion of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. If someone who knows this particular argument better than I do could add some text to explain the relationship, that would be helpful. Or, if there is no relationship, it should be deleted from the section and placed somewhere else if relevant.

My own leaning is toward simple deletion, since I don't see a possible logical link to the end of birthright citizenship for specific sets of persons. (An argument for the end of birthright citizenship for all people makes sense on classical social contract theory grounds, but not in terms of negative claims about state non-ownership.)

Anyway, I'm baffled as to what to make of this. Anyone else have reactions?128.223.223.193 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in relation to vaccination policy thehill. Moving it -- Aronzak (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Foreign aid

I don't know if I should put the NPOV tag or some other tag on the section regarding eliminating foreign aid to other countries, since it talks only about Israel... Rand Paul has a much more articulated position on the issue... and the section does not represent what he is for or what he has said. --Mr.Pseudo ^{Don't talk to me} 12:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Political positions of Rand Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130401150703/http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/19/sen-rand-paul-talks-cpac-straw-poll-victory-looks-ahead-2016 to http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/03/19/sen-rand-paul-talks-cpac-straw-poll-victory-looks-ahead-2016

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)