Rand Paul Standing for Persecuted Christians

[Zarn]

Finally, a credible politician standing up for one of the most marginalized and alienated groups in America.

This is not about Americans.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The fact that there isn't a 'war on Christians' doesn't matter. The relevant issue is that Rand Paul is showing that he is willing to pander to christian conservatives which shows he can expand his base beyond the usual libertarian wing.

But where does the young Paul stand on SSM and the various 'vice' laws (porn, drugs, prostitution, etc)? The libertarian position tends to be the opposite of the christian conservative position. Seems to me he can't have it both ways in those cases.

You can hold Christian and Libertarian views on both. I don't approve of some things, but what right do I have to tell others? I might not like marijuana for example, but does that give me the right to prohibit others from it? The entire message behind libertarianism is personal choice and non-violence.

[Likely Voter]

The fact that there isn't a 'war on Christians' doesn't matter. The relevant issue is that Rand Paul is showing that he is willing to pander to christian conservatives which shows he can expand his base beyond the usual libertarian wing.

But where does the young Paul stand on SSM and the various 'vice' laws (porn, drugs, prostitution, etc)? The libertarian position tends to be the opposite of the christian conservative position. Seems to me he can't have it both ways in those cases.

You can hold Christian and Libertarian views on both. I don't approve of some things, but what right do I have to tell others? I might not like marijuana for example, but does that give me the right to prohibit others from it? The entire message behind libertarianism is personal choice and non-violence.

Yes Libertarians dont want to impose their views on others. However the likes of Huckabee and Santorum and Pat Robertson (and the people that voted for them) very much do want the state to impose their morals. Which is my point. Paul cant have it both ways.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The fact that there isn't a 'war on Christians' doesn't matter. The relevant issue is that Rand Paul is showing that he is willing to pander to christian conservatives which shows he can expand his base beyond the usual libertarian wing.

But where does the young Paul stand on SSM and the various 'vice' laws (porn, drugs, prostitution, etc)? The libertarian position tends to be the opposite of the christian conservative position. Seems to me he can't have it both ways in those cases.

You can hold Christian and Libertarian views on both. I don't approve of some things, but what right do I have to tell others? I might not like marijuana for example, but does that give me the right to prohibit others from it? The entire message behind libertarianism is personal choice and non-violence.

Yes Libertarians dont want to impose their views on others. However the likes of Huckabee and Santorum and Pat Robertson (and the people that voted for them) very much do want the state to impose their morals. Which is my point. Paul cant have it both ways.

Well sure he can, he can hold enough views that they approve of, and conduct himself in a "moral" way, and then slowly sway them towards holding more libertarian attitudes. It's not like they'll always hold the exact same views, and in the process they'll regain some relevance on the national stage.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The fact that there isn't a 'war on Christians' doesn't matter. The relevant issue is that Rand Paul is showing that he is willing to pander to christian conservatives which shows he can expand his base beyond the usual libertarian wing.

But where does the young Paul stand on SSM and the various 'vice' laws (porn, drugs, prostitution, etc)? The libertarian position tends to be the opposite of the christian conservative position. Seems to me he can't have it both ways in those cases.

You can hold Christian and Libertarian views on both. I don't approve of some things, but what right do I have to tell others? I might not like marijuana for example, but does that give me the right to prohibit others from it? The entire message behind libertarianism is personal choice and non-violence.

Yes Libertarians dont want to impose their views on others. However the likes of Huckabee and Santorum and Pat Robertson (and the people that voted for them) very much do want the state to impose their morals. Which is my point. Paul cant have it both ways.

He does not want it both ways. He has not voted in favor of the Santorum and Huckabee proposals to my knowlege, and many Santorum and Huckabee voters can be coopted into his movement

[Likely Voter]

and for Paul's next trick he will convince the neocons to become isolationists

and then he will turn water into wine!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

and for Paul's next trick he will convince the neocons to become isolationists

and then he will turn water into wine!

Considering how people like my Grandma (who, circa 2002 was the biggest war hawk you could ever meet) are now anti-war that a Democrat is in office, it is not impossible. Paul and his father have strong pro-life records, which is the most important issue for evangelicals by far.

[Likely Voter]

sorry but in the end there will be a real evangelical in the race, probably Paul Walker. If not, they always have Santorum. And you can be sure that the christian conservative candidate will go after paul on all the issues where he doesn't adhere to their orthodoxy.

It is naive to think Paul can perform some magic trick and unite the libertarian wing with the christian conservative wing. He is better off going after more moderate wing who supported the likes of McCain, Huntsman and Romney with his message of free markets and civil liberties.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

sorry but in the end there will be a real evangelical in the race, probably Paul Walker. If not, they always have Santorum. And you can be sure that the christian conservative candidate will go after paul on all the issues where he doesn't adhere to their orthodoxy.

It is naive to think Paul can perform some magic trick and unite the libertarian wing with the christian conservative wing. He is better off going after more moderate wing who supported the likes of McCain, Huntsman and Romney with his message of free markets and civil liberties.

Again, a large chunk of evangelicals supported Ron Paul in 2012. Santorum got most of them, but he got enough support from evangelicals to effectively tie with Romney and Santorum for first place in Iowa (Santorum 24.54%, Romney 24.51%, Paul 21.41%-basically a three way tie.) All he needs is to get a small chunk of evangelicals to win Iowa, and be the second or third choice of the evangelicals for the rest of the primaries until the day he is nominated (if he makes it that far) in which he can strongly unite the base behind him and go on to face Hillary, Biden, O'Malley, etc.

[Maxwell]

And he's courting the evangelicals, maybe the paulstards will realize that he's not a true libertarian and he's fooling them?

Stop making the same bad point. Nobody is saying Rand Paul is a tr00 Libertarian.

[Peter the Lefty]

Funny that he's not making a fuss about the plight of Muslims in Burma.  Not to mention his Dad quite passionately opposed the intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing of (Muslim) ethnic Albanians in Kosovo (and I'm not saying that his Dad's views are automatically his own, but most statements he has made would indicate that his position is the same).

There is nothing America can realistically do to influence the situation in Burma (only China could potentially do that), whereas Christians are being persecuted in countries receiving American aid and allied with the US.
Besides isn't it legitimate for a majority Christian country like the US to make protection of Christian minorities a priority?

Actually, we are now sending aid to Burma.  And the majority religion of a secular country shouldn't influence who it chooses to fight for.  That would be favoritism.  And when it comes to genocide, favoritism on who to protect is completely immoral.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Funny that he's not making a fuss about the plight of Muslims in Burma.  Not to mention his Dad quite passionately opposed the intervention to stop the ethnic cleansing of (Muslim) ethnic Albanians in Kosovo (and I'm not saying that his Dad's views are automatically his own, but most statements he has made would indicate that his position is the same).

There is nothing America can realistically do to influence the situation in Burma (only China could potentially do that), whereas Christians are being persecuted in countries receiving American aid and allied with the US.
Besides isn't it legitimate for a majority Christian country like the US to make protection of Christian minorities a priority?

Actually, we are now sending aid to Burma.  And the majority religion of a secular country shouldn't influence who it chooses to fight for.  That would be favoritism.  And when it comes to genocide, favoritism on who to protect is completely immoral.

Is there any evidence that the violence against Muslims in Burma is being supported by the regime? My understand is the government has generally tried to minimize this. The Burmese military is clearly behind attacks on Christians, but unlike the Muslims the Christians are mostly from geographically removed ethnic minorities and have sometimes been associated with rebel groups.

It's not fair to suggest that Ron Paul is in any way anti-Muslim. He is a consistent  anti-interventionist.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

sorry but in the end there will be a real evangelical in the race, probably Paul Walker. If not, they always have Santorum. And you can be sure that the christian conservative candidate will go after paul on all the issues where he doesn't adhere to their orthodoxy.

It is naive to think Paul can perform some magic trick and unite the libertarian wing with the christian conservative wing. He is better off going after more moderate wing who supported the likes of McCain, Huntsman and Romney with his message of free markets and civil liberties.

Again, a large chunk of evangelicals supported Ron Paul in 2012. Santorum got most of them, but he got enough support from evangelicals to effectively tie with Romney and Santorum for first place in Iowa (Santorum 24.54%, Romney 24.51%, Paul 21.41%-basically a three way tie.) All he needs is to get a small chunk of evangelicals to win Iowa, and be the second or third choice of the evangelicals for the rest of the primaries until the day he is nominated (if he makes it that far) in which he can strongly unite the base behind him and go on to face Hillary, Biden, O'Malley, etc.

I'm gonna say it straight. I was a Huckabee supporter for much of the 2008 primary season until I heard of Ron Paul. To say the Paul's can't win over evangelicals shows a politically naive view. Not all conservative Christians supported the wars or the spending that Huckabee supported but many mispainted Ron Paul as a radical whose ideas were from a bygone era. If Rand runs I endorse him wholeheartedly unless my governor steps in in which it makes my vote a torn one.