537
Comments (54)
sorted by:
38
armyofpedes4usa 38 points ago +41 / -3

That's very nice, but where was this talk on Jan 6 when he cucked out?

3
sickofaltspin 3 points ago +13 / -10

Doing the same thing he is doing now. Upholding his belief that the US Constitution defines and limits his authority.

Keep shooting your allies though and wondering why the left is winning.

12
Quixotic 12 points ago +14 / -2

He is against this now because if it goes forward trump will have the opportunity to show the proof of the steal which will render Paul guilty of treason

1
sickofaltspin 1 point ago +1 / -0

He was against it then, but unlike some of you fuckos he is well aware that setting a precedent that the Congress gets to further defang State government is going to bite us in the ass.

Maybe you should have been doing something other than following a cult of personality when Trump let them do the lockdowns that led to the violations of state laws.

1
Quixotic 1 point ago +1 / -0

He didn’t “let them do lockdowns,” he has literally no power over state government and there was absolutely nothing he could have done.

0
sickofaltspin 0 points ago +1 / -1

Hmmmm... yet here you are throwing arrows at someone making the same argument....

0
Quixotic 0 points ago +1 / -1

nope

8
deleted 8 points ago +10 / -2
1
sickofaltspin 1 point ago +1 / -0

And you are an uninformed idiot.

Are you suggesting we abolish the State governments?

-1
thedonaldsomething -1 points ago +3 / -4

I don't think so. His dad always seemed chill and so does he. I think the problem with Rand is that he is too strict with his beliefs and is never willing to stray away from them for the greater good. He's always worried about who's supposed to do what or which channels you're supposed to use for what or worrying about what dems in the future might do instead of doing what's important now because everything depends on it.

I think Rand loves the USA, he just isn't full MAGA/TRUMP. Meanwhile plenty of people are just grifters who latched on to Trump because they saw it was beneficial for thei reelections.

If you look at Rand through the years he votes the same and talks the same. You might not always agree with him but at least he always sticks to his guns which isn't like the other 99% of Washington.

5
rabdargab 5 points ago +5 / -0

All that may be true, but he cowered out when the nation needed him. He has to atone for that

1
sickofaltspin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Was it cowering - or was it maintaining his belief and our principal that States are not merely weaker arms of the all mighty Federal Government with their own rights, laws, and regulations?

Would like for the Federal Government to use this precedent 5 years from now when the Federal Government decides to demand you house soldiers and your State Government pushes back?

0
rabdargab 0 points ago +1 / -1

Right, so the senators objecting would (if passed) have sent it back to the states. The Senators did not have the authority to "over turn the election results" that is a BS media narrative, and Rand being the staunch constitutionalist he claims to be should know that, and would have followed precedent.

3
RedditIs4Retards 3 points ago +3 / -0

Just because his dad is a good dude doesn't mean this guy isn't a bought off piece of shit.

He backstabbed trump and the country. And people knew he would before he even did it.

He just wants idiots like you to keep voting republican

4
SpookySpook 4 points ago +5 / -1

If he cared, he would have cared about that teeny tiny part that establishes that legislatures are in charge of elections

1
sickofaltspin 1 point ago +1 / -0

You mean the State governments?

Fuck man, read a 4th Grade Civics book.

4
alfredbester 4 points ago +5 / -1

We didn't shoot any allies. This ally stabbed us right in the back. I used to support Rand Paul. He talks big when his actions have no consequence but we all heard his voice when he affirmed the election he now disputes.

1
sickofaltspin 1 point ago +1 / -0

This ally stabbed us right in the back.

By honestly believing he did not have a legal right to just ignore State governments?

Fuck off, he's done more for my and your liberty than you ever will.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Perhelion 2 points ago +3 / -1

Exactly. He knew there was voter fraud but signed off on the certification of the election results. This guy is a master of being a lukewarm line walker, never truly choosing a side and this is never to be trusted. Chameleon.

2
NickAtNight 2 points ago +3 / -1

Question is - how does he enforce that?

18
Filial_Piety_is_key 18 points ago +20 / -2

"But I will still side with the fraudulent electors for the Nov 3 2020 election results" - cuck Rand Paul

-4
SisterCovfefe -4 points ago +4 / -8

I didn't think Rand "cucked out".

The state legislatures which didn't find a spine until AFTER the results were certified did.

4
MAGAlikethis 4 points ago +4 / -0

Rand Paul was a cuck from the beginning. He was telling Congress not to vote to object: https://streamable.com/xn27gm

3
GameOnGlobalists 3 points ago +3 / -0

Every single one of them who magically abandoned any and all objection to electors on the basis of muh completely irrelevant attack on the Capitol cucked out.

1
Tendies_or_GTFO 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why not both?

-1
thedonaldsomething -1 points ago +2 / -3

People keep thinking for some reason one person or a small group of people were somehow going to magically fix everything. No, when Congress, the House, CIA, DOJ, FBI, DNC, RNC, courts, and god knows what else are corrupt you're kind of fucked no matter how much evidence you may have or try to present.

It's kind of like how people shit on Rudy, Wood, and that lady who acted like they had proof of everything. They did, everyone ignored it.

13
becky21k1 13 points ago +14 / -1

Chief Justice - - - - - - - Partisan Democrat

They're the same picture

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
-2
thedonaldsomething -2 points ago +1 / -3

"Rand Shills"

The amount of people who use the term shill without understanding what it means has gone up 10000000% over the past couple weeks.

8
PlateOwner [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Every White Flag Republican who supports a trial presided by a Democrat will never hear the end of it. It's one thing to support a trial when you think it'll be presided over by a Chief Justice, but a Democrat takes it to a new level of insanity or betrayal. Resign and get a job with MSNBC.

6
ArriveViolently 6 points ago +6 / -0

Rand Paul is dead to me.

6
Redditcanblowme 6 points ago +6 / -0

How does the minority party "force" anything?

4
vermineod 4 points ago +4 / -0

Pussy

2
Doctornirgon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Rand cucked out

2
holliday50 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's great and all, but how about also not impeaching him on the basis that he didn't fucking incite anything, that the protestors were already forcing their way inside while Trump was speaking, that said protestors had already pre-planned this activity days & weeks prior to Trump's speech, and the fact that Trump's speech is Constitutionally protected.

Why not give that a fucking spin?

1
TheWinningNeverStops 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck off! Same song and dance. Remember what he did on the 6th!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
eddedandedamame 1 point ago +1 / -0

I like that Trump is using "Office of the former President." I think it's just a joke about the office of the president-elect thing, but it also helps underscore Rand's (and others') argument.

1
defiant_liberty 1 point ago +1 / -0

It doesn't matter what the fuck he says anymore. He is a senator of an illegitimate government. We need to secede.

1
bar_zangi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hope this scum chokes on his wife's boyfriend's cock

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Auroraalpha 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hmmmmm. All well and good. What can you even do, since they will try and force it through by simple majority vote.

0
Test_user21 0 points ago +1 / -1

Constitution is clear, it says "President".

-1
RandomPanda -1 points ago +1 / -2

Am I the only one who thinks the impeachment trial is a good thing? It does 2 things. Sets a prescience that you can impeach former presidents (and former public officials) so if sanity ever returns, we can go after GW and Hussain. And secondly it gives Trump a venue and audience to unload the election fraud and other evidence.

10
tang81 10 points ago +10 / -0

You think the Dems are going to allow Trump to present evidence or any kind of defence?

1
Populist_Leader 1 point ago +1 / -0

Media will misreport like they always do

7
SisterCovfefe 7 points ago +7 / -0

They could also do something like impeach Washington, Jefferson etc for being slaveowners and use it as a pretext to abolish the Constitution.

This is no bueno.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
SisterCovfefe 2 points ago +2 / -0

they will need to make it look legit

3
PennsylPede1776 3 points ago +3 / -0

BUT regardless of any evidence he has, they'll convict him. The alien mother ship itself could land, and Elvis can walk out with the larping German Scytl servers in his arms, and they'd still convict him.

0
RandomPanda 0 points ago +1 / -1

Depending on the evidence he has, quite a few people would be prohibited from casting a vote or even invalidating the passing of the house vote.

1
PennsylPede1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're assuming there's going to be any semblance to a real court of law. They're already going to move forward with the trial, which is unconstitutional. They're not going to have the Chief Justice preside over the case, as the Constitution dictates; instead they're having a Democrat Senator preside over it. This isn't a real trial. It's a lynching. It doesn't matter what he presents; it's totally meaningless in that arena.

3
Pierre_Delectoes 3 points ago +3 / -0

They wouldn't have the trial if they thought Trump would get a fair hearing.