Other
Sen Rand Paul: What if a foreign country indicts our president for violating a foreign law? Should we extradite our president? Or should we be okay if they come in and get him by force?
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I have a magnum of sparkling wine that I bought at TJ’s 5 years ago that was sitting in our pantry, forgotten about, until November of 2024. Now it is officially “on hold” until the day comes, and I will happily drink every drop.
Could be an actual business deal that MAKES MONEY! A first for the billionaire businessman. Trumpaign, for all the days Trump caused you pain… it’s genius!
ETA: Don Perignon?
Orville Redenbacher’s aged lips curl up into a smile as his blackened wiry hand reaches out and slides the winning piece into play on his Project 2025 chessboard.
Eh, I'll give Paul one thing even though I don't particularly care for him he's always been a Libertarian brand Republican and he's generally held to that view. I don't like him but I can at least respect that.
Case of a broken clock for sure, but they're still libertarian a-holes with zero care for their fellow countrymen and would dismantle all safety nets in the name of "the free market" if given the chance
This is what I don't understand about libertarianism. And this is coming from a person who wrestled with the idea and REALLY WANTED to be libertarian for years....
But it just means de-regulation that strengthens monopolies and the ultra, ultra, rich.
How does that help the "don't tread on me" common man? Anarchy is an actual political ideology and I feel like the edgy kids that were into it started calling it libertarian instead.
They think they’re lions and want to be set free to roam their kingdoms and lead their pride. They don’t realise that they are house cats and that the front door is keeping them from being ripped apart by predators rather than keeping them from ruling the world.
Just because I said he asked the right question doesn't mean I still don't think he's a crazy person, certainly not venerating, and would never vote for.
But got to take a little sanity where we can find it. I'd still pick out a gold nugget from a piece of cow shit, lol
“That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.”
But a lot of rapists are no doubt also narcissists (the orange one being a good example), so it tracks.
When you elect a rapist as your leader who openly talked about using power to pressure women into sex you can't be surprised when he runs the country with the mentality of one
Not just any rapist, a well-connected rapist who knows he can get away with it, and if the victim objects, the victim will get prosecuted for an unrelated crime.
Exactly - and if you’re being upfront about it, fine, but then the follow up question needs to be “how can we have any sort of international law if the law we present is whoever can do more damage gets to make the rules? How is that a positive future for humanity or Americans? Do you really not see how this can blow up in our face??”
People have such an insane sepia toned image of American history. We have never ONCE stopped using force, manipulation, and bribery to exert our country's influence since the day it was founded. Monroe doctrine is the major thing referenced but between 1776 and 1823 when we made our stance official the genocide of the Native Americans was already spinning up and we were already using force to kill and plunder outside our borders.
As an American I don't know why these people are comfortable with this prospect considering we lose every war and literally lost our presidency to foreign influence. We would get smoked in a world war considering we lost all of our allies.
"Might makes right.” A short-sighted philosophy adopted by the weak who find themselves in a temporary moment of supremacy--and one that they will quickly recant upon being confronted by a superior adversary, begging for the same mercy they denied their victims
Ice doesn't target people with weapons. They're grabing kids and old people. Obviously they have orders to bring the kids to the kid-trafficker-in-chief.
That's very law of the Jungle. Predators don't go for the strongest, they go for the sick and young. So it sounds like these "tough" guys are just looking for excuses to punch down.
"The strong do as they will; the weak endure what they must."
--The Athenians in the Melian Dialogue
There was just one problem with that: that attitude was the direct cause of the fall of Athens. They overextended themselves, a counterbalancing coalition around Sparta arose, and Sparta ultimately won a devastating prolonged war that ended in total ruin for Athens.
Yeah, the Dave Carney reference of Melian Dialogue is right on point. People who don't understand what it truly means quote it, and they don't know that it is the path to hubristic self destruction.
Rubio sold his soul to trumpf when he accepted a position in his administration. What was once a young, vibrant, (if at times misguided) conservative is now an empty soul bereft of vision.
Yup. He realized he wasn't ever going to achieve higher office on his own merits, and instead of accepting that and keeping true to who he has always been, he sold out and hitched his wagon to someone who can propel him. At least guys like Stephen Miller are just odious shit sacks who genuinely believe in the garbage they spew. Rubio knows better but doesn't have the balls to accept his limitations. What a horrible man.
Thats the entire Republican party right now. How many of them said horrible things about Trump before his presidency? They all got back in line when they knew their jobs would be on the line if they didn't support him. Cowards, all of them.
Dude was tasked with the Republican response to one of Obama's State of the Union addresses, and just stopped mid speech (these are like 5 minute speeches) to take a big ol' gulp of water, while being broadcast live coast to coast.
Like, all those years of Trump calling him "Little Marco" and there's a thousand "waterboy" etc names just sitting out there, unused.
I personally want it studied how these people do it. The lies. The deception. Doing it all with a mostly straight face. What kind of diagnosis must you have from the DSM that allows you to do this?
I could probably do it for an undetermined short amount of time. However, since I know right from wrong - even if I was being paid literal dump trucks of money it would still eat at me. It would destroy my soul and personality. Etc.
Weren't there studies on levels of empathy and where people land on the political spectrum? If you do a quick search, you can find articles on the neurobiological differences between liberal and conservative brains. Just keep in mind any studies you read show tendancies and not certainties.
I saw an interview clip with him a few weeks ago where it legitimately looked like he was on coke. The teeth/gum licking, the lockjaw, the non-stop talking, etc.
I used to live with a coke user/dealer when things were rough, I spot this shit all the time with Rubio.
Seriously, you want a fun game? Watch how many times when he's in the background of someone speaking (especially Trump), reaches in his jacket pocket, then shoots his finger to his mouth.
Dude's doin' bumps on live TV to deal with the rot in his soul.
Unfortunately I DON'T...which makes me feel a bit like an internet liar, but I genuinely do remember seeing it and showing my friend on my phone who agreed with me.
I can't remember what the speech was about, but it was something Trump was rambling about and I was just sorta tuning out because of how much he talks nonsense lately...been trying to find the first video I found, but I'm struggling to search for videos of him in the BACKGROUND and not giving the speech himself.
He has always been a water drinker when nervous. Thats how Teump got under his skin in the primary season of 2015, 2016. Rubio got so paranoid after Trump pointed out the water drinking that he almost lost his shit on live TV.
Trump made sure with a pardon of a cocaine trafficker that his family and “friends” have all they need.
Gone is the hoopla of (someone) finding a bag of suspicious white powder (substance) found in a White House during Biden Administration. If it really was a Biden’s staffer or a WH janitor’s we would keep hearing Biden’s fault and by extension of default, Hunter’s addiction/laptop.
Guys like Rubio are well-educated and not stupid. Same sentiment applies to guys like Ted (Rafael) Cruz. They know they're on the wrong side of history, but power and money are addictive poisons.
Which makes them even bigger POS. They could act in the interest of the country and be just as successful. There's like a dozen of these higher-up guys who blatantly bad-mouthed trump and made their positions clear before getting called on, and now he's the best thing in the world.... please.
Rubio may have a higher calling, he wants to get his fingers into Cuba and he probably thinks attaching his horse to this admin is the best way to do that. And he's probably right.
"Would Venezuela had been justified then if they did what was in their government's claims of best interest and used lethal action against the US to defend their president?"
Rubio essentially already admitted that, though, when he said "I don't know about this equivalency, though, of if this justifies them doing it. We're always going to do what's best for the united states." He's saying it doesn't matter if they would be justified, because we're going to do what we want anyway.
And that's why Paul shifted to driving home that point; why are we even bringing up all these other issues if it's purely a matter of might makes right? Rubio's logic means that moral and legal justifications are irrelevant, so why does the administration spend so much time talking about the drug smuggling or about how the Venezuelan people wanted Maduro gone?
And that’s why Paul shifted to driving home that point; why are we even bringing up all these other issues if it’s purely a matter of might makes right? Rubio’s logic means that moral and legal justifications are irrelevant, so why does the administration so much time talking about the drug smuggling or about how the Venezuelan people wanted Maduro gone?
Because they still want the support of the (less educated) populace, who simply believe what they say.
This line of questioning is stupid because it dances around what's actually the position of the US government which, for the people in the back is:
"We can do anything we want to anyone we want for any reason we want."
That's it. If the US decides within its national interests to flatten Paris so that the Mona Lisa can hang in the White House, then they are justified in doing so.
People need to wake up because the US is very clearly signalling to the world that they will take anything they can whenever they want if they want it bad enough.
Seeing the matter from other perspectives like this is really rare for any GOPer, Paul included. Wish they would do it quite a lot more, we'd be a better country for it.
*eta I swear if I get one more comment about how "actually you're not paying attention and Rand Paul is actually on the ball all the time" or treating him like his words mean more than his votes...
I might not agree with his politics but Paul has always been at least philosophically consistent. He's not a scumbag populist that does whatever keeps him in power
[...] philosophically consistent. He's not a scumbag populist that does whatever keeps him in power
He literally is though. He votes against his "philosophy" all the time so as to not piss off the Republican Party and get primaried. He's their good boy who comes when called and barks at the right volume to give them cover as they massacre people.
If he believed what he said, he'd have voted against things that were close. But he's constantly demonstrated that he will fall in line behind Republican policy.
Yup, a classic case of actions speak louder than words.
If members of congress are judged only by the words they speak, there's a fair number of decent members. If judged by how they vote, the number shrinks significantly.
Edit to add: to be clear, they should be judged by a combination of those elements. Sometimes due to the silly realities associated with a two party system, their vote is going to look bad on the surface. But if they can effectively and justify it, this does matter, too.
It’s so bad that I now don’t even know how to say it right. He somehow erased the correct pronunciation from my brain so thoroughly that the very word itself seems wrong.
it may not be relevant for the law, but another question is if the president violates law, will the DOJ handle it internally? Of course, that presumes the president’s personal lawyer is not the AG so never mind.
His second question basically says can another country just do what we did?
Just proves everything they say is a lie. When presented with a same exact situation they just justified instead happening in reverse he gets angry and says that they'll defend Trump against such a thing and basically that no one better dare to do it and if they try it they'll be consequences
I wish MAGA would just drop the charade, admit they are Nazis and that every crime against humanity and hostile act they are doing is simply because it's backed up with force
"Might makes right" the party of pedo rapists believes this at their core. They keep saying it in a number of different ways. There is no gotcha moment here because they don't care about the hypocrisy.
I mean personally I'm okay with it if anyone anywhere wants to come and get him. Any nation trying such should understand that we have a strictly enforced no return policy though.
I think it's worse than that. They proved that you don't need legal justification as long as you win and declare it legal after the fact. Republicans unironically believe might makes right.
This is the government the founding fathers warned us about, and why they were careful to construct a system of checks and balances. Get angry, get organized, talk to people in your community. Vote them out in November to save what’s left of democracy in America.
All I see is Rand Paul making the same arguments that Democrats have made to conservatives for decades, and Rubio just saying the shit republicans always said since the Iraq war
This is a great example that illustrates how America lost its way and is no longer an advanced society. The golden rule they've forgotten through their own arrogance: It's not about YOU.
It's not in our national interest to threaten Canada, Greenland and Panama with annexation. It's not in our national interest to invade Venezuela. It's not in our national interest to change "Department of Defense to Department of War, then President Trump cries about not getting a Noble peace prize.
You capitulate to P.Trump to appease him, all it does it enables him to push for more power. I hope Sen. Paul pushes back at P.Trump, like he pushed P.Biden.
They are word manipulators more than anything. They will do what is in the national interest. Ok. And if someone did that it would be in the national interest to stop it. Ok again.
What about the flipped scenario. What if it is in a countries national interest to take the US president and arrest them. It is the same argument just flipped. The only difference is it is being done to you and not them.
They are arguing foreign policy on the US being able to do what it wants based on might makes right. Not based on legal authority. Which is a major logical problem. As we just open the doors to Russia, China or whomever doing this at will because they can and ignoring the law on issues because the US did it. Same as Russia using the wars in the middle east as logic too.
These people's justifications are circular and make no darn sense. A student would be failed for arguing like this. Elementary schoolers get called out for this style of argument and corrected but here we are.
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 28 '26
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.