Rand Paul: If Hillary cares about women's rights, she will boycott Saudi Arabia

[Fuzzybigfoot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/12/rand-paul-hillary-clinton_n_7049486.html


Then he says that he himself WOULDN'T boycott Saudi Arabia.  Does that mean that Rand Paul doesn't care about women's rights?  I love how he criticizes Hillary for hypocrisy while obviously  holding double standards for her.  I'm not sure if he's really this much of a moron, or if he thinks that he can just get away with these statements without anyone criticizing him (or a mix of both). 

[Ebsy]

It's hard for me to take anything Paul says seriously.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Well, Rand Paul doesn't make women's right the top priority of his campaign. That's the difference.

Some Libertarian he is, then. 

[Xing]

It's hard for me to take anything Paul says seriously.

[King]

Well, Rand Paul doesn't make women's right the top priority of his campaign. That's the difference.

What a hackish reasoning. You're allowed to be a hypocrite when it comes to lower priorities of your campaign? BS.

I guess that means Hillary's "scandals" can go away now because NSA/government transparency/conspiracy theory is not a top priority of her campaign.

There's a lot to like about Rand, but this was weak. Stand up and say you will declare Saudi Arabia an enemy of U.S. values or shut up about any other candidate who has a diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see anything hypocritical in that position.  Is it sensible?  No.

[King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see anything hypocritical in that position.  Is it sensible?  No.

It's a pointless distinction. It's hypocritical in that Rand prides himself on being consistently principled and a straight shooter. That answer didn't even shut the door on himself taking donations from Saudi Arabia at a later date.

[Sumner 1868]

I'd like to cut off all military aid to Saudi Arabia, with gender segregation being only one of the endless reasons why we should not ally with them. Unfortunately, nobody will propose this because oil and "regional stability."

Well, Rand Paul doesn't make women's right the top priority of his campaign. That's the difference.

What a hackish reasoning. You're allowed to be a hypocrite when it comes to lower priorities of your campaign? BS.

I guess that means Hillary's "scandals" can go away now because NSA/government transparency/conspiracy theory is not a top priority of her campaign.

There's a lot to like about Rand, but this was weak. Stand up and say you will declare Saudi Arabia an enemy of U.S. values or shut up about any other candidate who has a diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia.

It's really not just theory anymore.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see anything hypocritical in that position.  Is it sensible?  No.

It's a pointless distinction. It's hypocritical in that Rand prides himself on being consistently principled and a straight shooter. That answer didn't even shut the door on himself taking donations from Saudi Arabia at a later date.

A difference between private voluntary action and government action is pretty fundamental to libertarianism.   Rand's statement would include himself, not that there is any chance of him being offered anything from Saudi Arabia in any case.

[Lief 🗽]

Rand Paul is rapidly becoming a joke candidate, and the media is catching on. Really amateurish from him; in less than a week he's basically destroyed his campaign.