Rand Paul surrounded by protesters...

[ThatRobGuy]

Chanting "Say her name" (referring to Breonna Taylor)

Protesters confront Rand Paul outside White House after Republican convention

Protesters surround Sen. Rand Paul after the RNC - CNN Video



The major irony here:
Sen. Rand Paul Introduces the ‘Justice for Breonna Taylor’ Act | Senator Rand Paul

On June 11th.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act to prohibit no-knock warrants, which allow law enforcement officials to forcibly enter a home without announcing their authority or purpose.

The bill is named in memory and honor of Breonna Taylor, a Louisville resident and EMT who was killed during a police raid on her home in March 2020, which was conducted under the authority of a no-knock warrant.

“After talking with Breonna Taylor’s family, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s long past time to get rid of no-knock warrants. This bill will effectively end no-knock raids in the United States,” said Sen. Paul.

Earlier this week, Senator Paul held a call with Breonna Taylor’s aunt, Bianca Austin, Game Changers Executive Director Christopher 2X, and others fighting for criminal justice reform, where he reiterated his long-standing commitment to ensuring a just and fair system that respects all Americans’ rights, including the need to end no-knock warrants.


So not only has he said her name, he's spoken with her family, taken legislative action (2 months ago) to correct the issue with no-knock warrants, and named the proposed bill in her honor.

Given that this is the case, I'm guessing it's one of 3 scenarios:
1) They were misinformed about something (not hard when so many people get their info exclusively from social media)
2) There were under-informed, which is quite possible, as after Rand introduced this bill (as a result of speaking directly with her family), the only ones reporting on it were local news affiliates in Kentucky...only one tiny article about it buried in the back pages of CNN, and not a peep from MSNBC about it, NBC had a tiny blurb about it buried in article about the case.
3) They just had their mind already made up that they were going to target any prominent politician they saw walking out of the convention.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yeah, the progressives really aren't very good at doing their homework. Paul is a civil libertarian from way back. In his ideal world, what happened to the victim would've been absolutely impossible.

So naturally, the extremists are attacking him.

What a lovable bunch...

 

[Hank77]

Chanting "Say her name" (referring to Breonna Taylor)

There is cussing in the last ten mins. of this video and nothing happens then anyway.

Probably all three are the answers as to why they didn't know. I thought I heard in the full video a man addressing him as Mr. Ryan.

There were two women with him and his wife. I think the woman in the red dress says to a protestor, "yes, black lives matter.", his wife briefly speaks to one of them as well.
When they arrived at Paul's hotel he had the perfect opportunity to address this small crowd of protesters. Explain who he was and his view on "no-knock warrants." After watching this video I can't imagine why he didn't do that. He could have used this group to spread hopeful news, news that someone in D.C. is actually listening. He failed to take that opportunity.
In 2016 I wrote-in Rand Paul as my choice for President, he's disappointed me several times since then but this is probably the worst.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yeah, the progressives really aren't very good at doing their homework.

Few people are.

 

[Searching1God]

There is cussing in the last ten mins. of this video and nothing happens then anyway.

Probably all three are the answers as to why they didn't know. I thought I heard in the full video a man addressing him as Mr. Ryan.

There were two women with him and his wife. I think the woman in the red dress says to a protestor, "yes, black lives matter.", his wife briefly speaks to one of them as well.
When they arrived at Paul's hotel he had the perfect opportunity to address this small crowd of protesters. Explain who he was and his view on "no-knock warrants." After watching this video I can't imagine why he didn't do that. He could have used this group to spread hopeful news, news that someone in D.C. is actually listening. He failed to take that opportunity.
In 2016 I wrote-in Rand Paul as my choice for President, he's disappointed me several times since then but this is probably the worst.

So Ron Paul is a bad person and failed politician because he didn't seize the opportunity to address a loud and boisterous protesters group who didn't even do their homework on what he has done on the Breanna Taylor issue?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There were two women with him and his wife. I think the woman in the red dress says to a protestor, "yes, black lives matter.", his wife briefly speaks to one of them as well.
When they arrived at Paul's hotel he had the perfect opportunity to address this small crowd of protesters. Explain who he was and his view on "no-knock warrants." After watching this video I can't imagine why he didn't do that. He could have used this group to spread hopeful news, news that someone in D.C. is actually listening. He failed to take that opportunity.
In 2016 I wrote-in Rand Paul as my choice for President, he's disappointed me several times since then but this is probably the worst.

That's only true if him being surrounded was due to reasons #1 or #2 on my list. (misinformed for under-informed)

If it was #3
"3) They just had their mind already made up that they were going to target any prominent politician they saw walking out of the convention."

...and they were just looking to exercise frustration against anyone on the red team who's said positive things about Trump at the RNC, then him talking until he's blue in the face likely wouldn't have done any good.

He's disappointed me on a few occasions as well, but I've always thought of Rand has having more pros than cons.

He's one of few that will consistently stand up to his own party on civil liberties when it comes to policing, being anti-war, and ending the failed war on drugs.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So Ron Paul is a bad person and failed politician because he didn't seize the opportunity to address a loud and boisterous protesters group who didn't even do their homework on what he has done on the Breanna Taylor issue?

*Rand Paul

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah, the progressives really aren't very good at doing their homework. Paul is a civil libertarian from way back. In his ideal world, what happened to the victim would've been absolutely impossible.

So naturally, the extremists are attacking him.

What a lovable bunch...

In the name of fairness and consistency, "there's a bit of that going around lately".

The amount of misinformation and "telling of partial truths while leaving things out" coming from factions on the Jacob Blake case was staggering.

After both sides had put their selective spin on the story,
You had one side believing he was just a good Samaritan who was breaking up a dispute between two other people, and got shot in the back for no reason for his trouble.

And the other side believing that he was some sort of child rapist who was waving a knife around at the cops.


Neither account represented reality, however, those were the narratives that drove people to riot, and people to hit the streets with AR's to confront the rioters.

 

[Hank77]

So Ron Paul is a bad person and failed politician because he didn't seize the opportunity to address a loud and boisterous protesters group who didn't even do their homework on what he has done on the Breanna Taylor issue?

lol, his name is not 'Ron' Paul.
The small crowd was 'boisterous' in asking him to say Breanna Taylor's name. Yes, he failed when he didn't address them when they got to the hotel. He could have helped the situation, he chose not to.

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

lol, his name is not 'Ron' Paul.
The small crowd was 'boisterous' in asking him to say Breanna Taylor's name. Yes, he failed when he didn't address them when they got to the hotel. He could have helped the situation, he chose not to.

He could have...and I can understand why folks think he should have.

But, I can also see why some people are getting sort of fed up this mentality that "One has a duty to appease the mob, and if they don't, and it gets ugly, it's their fault"

We're talking about the same DC protesters who thought this was a suitable approach.

(barging into a restaurant, demanding that people raise their fist in solidarity with a neo-Marxist organization, and getting downright hostile when someone doesn't want to comply...equating their refusal to do so with "white silence").

I for one do support the Black Lives Matter movement (not to be confused with the organization), however, you'll never catch me being forcibly coerced into doing the "red salute" just to try to prove to some group of roaming 22 year olds that "Hey guys look, I'm not racist!"

I'm very skeptical that this particular group can be reasoned with.

 

[Hank77]

That's only true if him being surrounded was due to reasons #1 or #2 on my list. (misinformed for under-informed)

If it was #3
"3) They just had their mind already made up that they were going to target any prominent politician they saw walking out of the convention."

...and they were just looking to exercise frustration against anyone on the red team who's said positive things about Trump at the RNC, then him talking until he's blue in the face likely wouldn't have done any good.

He's disappointed me on a few occasions as well, but I've always thought of Rand has having more pros than cons.

He's one of few that will consistently stand up to his own party on civil liberties when it comes to policing, being anti-war, and ending the failed war on drugs.

I never assume that a group of people is thinking alike. Some probably were #3, but obviously there were some that knew who he was but didn't know much about him and definitely didn't know his work against no-knock warrants.

 

[Searching1God]

lol, his name is not 'Ron' Paul.
The small crowd was 'boisterous' in asking him to say Breanna Taylor's name. Yes, he failed when he didn't address them when they got to the hotel. He could have helped the situation, he chose not to.

Ooops for the typo! I always think about Ron when I talk about his son.

 

[Searching1God]

lol, his name is not 'Ron' Paul.
The small crowd was 'boisterous' in asking him to say Breanna Taylor's name. Yes, he failed when he didn't address them when they got to the hotel. He could have helped the situation, he chose not to.

Lol, I know, sorry for the typo. I always think about the father when I talk about the son.

So he didn't help the situation at the hotel, but he did do the necessary when it came to passing the laws related to Breanna Taylor.

Just goes to show, you can't please everyone all of the time.

 

[Hank77]

I for one do support the Black Lives Matter movement (not to be confused with the organization), however, you'll never catch me being forcibly coerced into doing the "red salute" just to try to prove to some group of roaming 22 year olds that "Hey guys look, I'm not racist!"

We look at this particular situation differently. I wouldn't see this as being 'forced' to do something I didn't want to do. I see it as an opportunity to reach out, educate, and give people hope knowing that someone is listening to them.

 

[Hank77]

So he didn't help the situation at the hotel, but he did do the necessary when it came to passing the laws related to Breanna Taylor.

And they needed to hear that and what better way than from the horse's mouth.
I'll bet there is people who post right here in the politics forums that didn't/don't know Paul had introduced a no-knock bill.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We look at this particular situation differently. I wouldn't see this as being 'forced' to do something I didn't want to do. I see it as an opportunity to reach out, educate, and give people hope knowing that someone is listening to them.

With the the interaction at the restaurant, you can see the lady trying to talk to them, and they just keep shouting over her getting her face when she's trying to talk.

...it's likely they would've done the same thing to Paul had he not been surrounded by cops.

 

[Hank77]

...it's likely they would've done the same thing to Paul had he not been surrounded by cops.

That's why I said he should have addressed them when they got to the hotel. They all would have been in front of him with the police between them with hotel doors right behind him.
If they didn't let him speak he could have pointed that out to them and just gone into the hotel. And... they couldn't say that he wouldn't talk to them.

 

[wing2000]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act to prohibit no-knock warrants, which allow law enforcement officials to forcibly enter a home without announcing their authority or purpose.

....what's the prognosis for passage?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

....what's the prognosis for passage?

That'll likely depend on the typical "Washington game".

Right now, the bill was sponsored by Rand, and is something that I think, in terms of actions and message, would be something that most democrats would claim to support on paper.

However, given that he's the sponsor, and the two co-sponsors that signed onto it after him were Mike Braun and Steve Daines (two other guys who the democrats aren't very fond of to the best of my knowledge), it makes me wonder if they'll block (because of who the sponsors are), and then try to come up with one of their own, with more sweeping defunding provisions directed at law enforcement, and try to push that through, and when the aforementioned guys oppose that, chalk it up to saying "see, they never really cared about the cause to begin with".

On the flip side, it'll be likely that a few members of the GOP will stir the pot, and preemptively say things like "If Democrats don't back this, then they don't really care about solving the problem, they just want to pander", which will sour many on it, and will vote against it in the name of party solidarity, or claim that "it doesn't go far enough".

The proposed bill is probably one of the easier reading bills I've ever seen on the congressional website.

Very straight forward, no pork in it, accomplishes something positive.

On principle, it should be a slam dunk... it's got a republican sponsor and co-sponsors (which means it has the potential to get republican support), and it speaks to something that many democrats in congress have claimed to want for a long time...

So as long as the media or specific bad actors in either party doesn't sabotage it, I would hope it has a pretty good shot.