Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Rand Paul Slams Trump on Military Gear for Police


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Monday denounced the Trump administration’s plan to reverse a ban on local and state police arming themselves with military equipment, saying it would encroach on Americans’ liberties.

Paul criticized the decision in a series of tweets, saying that the move would “subsidize militarization” and provide “an illusive and dangerous, or false, security” to Americans.

Another strong libertarian-like response from Rand:



  -RW

(ht InfoWars)

14 comments:

  1. Police militarization goes hand in hand with the mostly synthetic left/right political violence. The public has been primed. It's classic problem-reaction-solution. Plus, all the more profits for the national security/military industrial complex as the "gifted" used materials will surely be replaced with shiny new materials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And such shiny new materials must be used. Maybe SWAT a kid's unlicensed lemonade stand?

      Delete
    2. Working for The Clampdown.

      Delete
  2. Rand Paul would have made a much better President than Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course he would. But the knuckle-dragging Trumpistas don't want small government and free markets; they all wanted a big, beautiful, tall wall to "keep 'em job-takin' Mexican illegulz out." And they're not even getting that.

      Delete
    2. I voted for Trump. And yes I have thick calluses on my knuckles. Personally I was never big on the whole wall thing. But I understand the feelings of millions of Americans who are being kicked out of the middle class into the underclass by the tsunami of low wage, low skilled immigrants from Mexico and South America. Trump came in promising to drain the swamp, but it looks like the swamp is draining him.

      Delete
    3. if you are in danger of being sucked into the underclass by a bunch of low skilled Mexicans or god forbid El Salvadoreans you need to get off your fat ass right now.

      Delete
    4. Re: Robert What?

      --- I understand the feelings of millions of Americans who are being kicked out of the middle class into the underclass by the tsunami of low wage, low skilled immigrants from Mexico and South America. ---

      You're as delusional as they are. People aren't being kicked out of the middle class by "low skilled immigrants from" wherever. If that were true, then the entrance of millions of women into the workforce 50-plus years ago should've meant the kicking off many more millions of men from the middle class to the so-called underclass. Marooned mariners, shipwrecked on deserted islands, should be the richest people alive if one took your argument seriously.

      Your assertion is evidence of a lack of understanding of basic economics. What immigrants do is increase Division of Labor and Specialization, both requirements to INCREASE people's standard of living. Through Comparative Advantage, immigrants RELEASE the more productive labor for more profitable endeavors while the less desirable tasks are still done. The fact there are more immigrants is indicative of a buoyant economy, not the contrary.

      Maybe some people are currently facing a period of transition for which they either cannot see a solution or the solution means doing something else besides what their daddies used to do, becoming easy prey for crass and bombastic demagogues like Trump or Bernie who like to point fingers to easy scapegoats like "illegulz who takum er jebz!" or the rich.

      Delete
    5. As a middle class Anglo, I resent the fact that I can't land that prime hedge trimming gig due to them damn Messicans!!!

      Delete
    6. Wages are a function of the supply of and demand for labor. Increase the supply by unlimited immigration and wage rates plummet.

      Delete
    7. @Marmite

      You are displaying total confusion here,
      You need to watch my video:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX3rFDmBBgM&t=9s

      Delete
    8. You're forgetting that he ran, and decided to act as a typical mainstream Republican crony. Robert Wenzel has documented all of it expertly in the past. He had his chance and proved completely unreliable as to what kind of president he was going to be.

      I'm glad he is now rediscovering some of his more libertarian roots. If he decides to run in the future, at least he should now know that playing footsie with the establishment will get you nowhere (Trump won after all, despite being at war with the GOP establishment) and you actually need something refreshing to offer.

      Delete
  3. Madeleine Albright: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

    ReplyDelete