I think he's trying to stay in Trump's good graces even if Rand is leading the opposition to RyanCare which Trump is backing (so far).

Damnit, I wish people like the author here would stop this misleading “clickybait” headline shit:

The headline reads:

Rand Paul: We Know For Sure Obama Administration Spied On Mike Flynn

Oh boy, I read that and went: “hip hip hooray” ….

Then I read the article, knowing all the time that I definitely want to be with Rand Paul on this…and hope the person who released the information on Flynn will be caught, brought to trial and given the maximum sentence.

However….however….as I read through the article, I do find Rand’s statement troubling since I fail to understand it.

Maybe you or someone else can help me fully comprehend what Rand Paul’s unique use of a mixture of contradicting words really meant, when he said:

I think that we know one thing for sure, that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn.

Let’s go to the Dictionary for help:

     Think: “Have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.”
      Know: “Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.”
      Sure: “Confident in what one thinks or knows; having no doubt that one is right.”

So, I have no argument, I am not debating anything, and certainly I am not doing a “libertarian putdown….when I say that i truthfully have just one simple question that seeks an honest answer.

The question is: “What is the Hell was Rand Paul saying?"

IOW, does he “think,” does he “know” or is he “sure”….”that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn?”

… Anyone?

Think:
Know
Sure: “Confident in what one thinks or knows; having no doubt that one is right.”

Interestingly, all of the words that you're bitching about are contained in the definition of the word Sure. They're not contradictory at all, are they? You're lying, aren't you?

YES!

The Obama administration spying segment starts @4:09

But which is it: “think,” “know” or “sure?”

He did use all three and you latched onto the last one.

So, if you assumption is correct, and if he were sure, he should have said:

I think that we know one thing for sure, that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn.

There, that would have been the correct way to express his “firm” conviction.

Why did he feel he needed to add the fully contradictory “doubt” to a statement he meant to be positive by saying “ I think?”

Oh, well …

I still really don’t "know" if he “thinks” or if he is “sure.”

If he is sure….as you say he is….then he has proof.

Have you seen his proof?

If he has proof, then why doesn’t he go to the DOJ and have charges filed against the guilty person, or persons?

I think that we know one thing for sure, that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn.

You're overreading some impromptu remarks in a fluid interview. Rand Paul was not reading a speech or a prepared statement which would have been vetted for ambiguity by his staff.

Rand's intent here, however, was obvious: I think It is my opinion that we know one thing for sure, that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn.

Of course, you could still ask "Who is 'we', senator?". The more accurate way of saying what he intended might have been "I believe we Republicans know with some certainty that Obama did spy on Flynn.".

I think Rand spoke for himself and his sense that many, if not all, his Republican colleagues agreed with him. However, he is not authorized to speak officially for the Senate GOP caucus so he alluded to this sense of considerable unity among the Senate GOP that the Flynn spying case was deliberate political intrigue directed by Obama and/or his minions.

It was more my intent look for truth and try to find some evidence in his statement…than to parse his sentence.

I agree with your, “it is my opinion” … interpretation. I was pretty sure it was just that all along.

For, if he had any EVIDENCE, he would have presented it to the DOJ….and the DOJ would probably already have it.

I think he is just “fanning the flame” and if that is what he wants to do, and he has a good reason for doing it….I am trying to understand why.

I don’t know if that is good or bad …

Thanks for your enlightening response ...

You will always remain my literary hero :)

I think that we know one thing for sure, that the Obama administration did spy on Flynn.

This was also the very first line that caught my attention.

You cannot apply a decision based on a belief or assumption. They either know or they do not know. This is what separates facts from presumptions.

I think he is just “fanning the flame” and if that is what he wants to do, and he has a good reason for doing it….I am trying to understand why.

Politics.

This serves multiple purposes politically.

1. Rand gives Trump some cover, even as he leads Senate opposition to TrumpCare.
2. Rand primes the pump and feeds a bit more red meat to the Right blogosphere so they have grist for their mills for another day or two.
3. Rand hits Dems and the establishment by attacking their fundamental character.
4. Rand gives cover to any number of reactionary attacks on Dems and variuos officials like Clapper and Comey.
5. Last but certainly not least, it gives Rand some ongoing facetime on FNC & ABCNNBCBS. And Rand is a card-carrying attention whore.

You will always remain my literary hero :)

Holy crap. LOL

"even if Rand is leading the opposition to RyanCare"

The House will be voting on Part I, and I've heard that Trump has already made some changes to it.

What in Part I does Rand oppose?

If they were spying, they were spying on the Russian ambassador. The ambassador had a conversation or two with Mike Flynn. Mike Flynn's side of the conversation was released, in violation of federal law.

I keep coming back to that ...

I think it was Rand Paul who said to give everyone who had access to the information a lie detector test to find the culprit that released the transcript.

I am in favor of that….and fail to understand, why it would not be done.

But then, maybe, the FBI will do something …

I have begun to hold out little hopes for the FBI to do anything correctly anymore …

What in Part I does Rand oppose?

Well, among other things I expect Rand objects to the whole idea of a Part I and II and III. It sounds like some ring cycle opera and you know those never have a happy ending.

Tom Cotton says the same thing, there will never be a Part II or Part III to TrumpCare. This alone spells its defeat or major modification in the Senate because Cotton/Lee/Cruz/Paul leaves you with a max of 48 votes in the Senate.

Rand is from KY, one of five states where the impact of TrumpCare will hit hardest, especially among those aged 55-65. So you can't expect Rand to take one for the team if he knows his older voters will get the shaft if Part I is the only part of TrumpCare that ever gets passed.

Beyond that, Rand was just re-elected to a 6-year term. So he can play hard to get. Rand has no great confidence that TrumpCare will turn out well and he does know that Trump only has until 2020 to get re-elected and Rand has until 2022. Politics.

Cruz, OTOH, faces the Texas voters in 2018 and has to live down his semi-non-endorsement of Trump at the 2016 GOP convention. Cruz is far more vulnerable, far more likely to cave.

Lee won't be up until 2020, I think. And Cotton just got elected and has, like Rand, until 2022.

And this is before you get to fair-weather GOP senators like Murkowski and Snowe.

I think Trump will get his bill through the House. I'm trying to see how he gets it through the Senate and it looks very very dicey to me.

"Tom Cotton says the same thing, there will never be a Part II or Part III to TrumpCare."

Part II consists of regulatory changes and Congress isn't involved. Part II will happen.

Part III requires 60 votes in the Senate. It will be the most difficult, but it has some good things in it that any Senator will be hard- pressed to vote down.

"where the impact of TrumpCare will hit hardest, especially among those aged 55-65."

If those aged 55-65 are forced to buy standard Obamacare-type health insurance and don't have other choices, yeah, they will be hit hardest.

But Part III offers them those choices -- Medical Savings Accounts, buying across state lines, customized plans, group insurance, etc.

The idea that any Part II or Part III will surface at the end of this year before we enter the 2018 election cycle seems like a daydream, something that will never happen. I think Cotton and the others are right.

Closing the bill to any further amendments in the House but leaving the bill wide-open for the Senate to make a lot of amendments (like increasing subsidy ammounts for the 55-65 age group, extending the Medicaid expansion into 2020 or beyond) doesn't help them much. By the time you do that, you're getting very close to re-enacting ObamaCare itself.

"Even passing Part I will be extremely difficult ..."

If you believe that, then I hope you weren't one of those calling for an immediate repeal and replace, forcing the need for 60 votes from the get-go.

"like increasing subsidy amounts for the 55-65 age group"

And what kind of subsidy was a middle-class individual, 55-65, going to get under Obamacare? Zero. Obama's subsidies were based on income, not age.

"extending the Medicaid expansion into 2020 or beyond"

Spoken like someone who ignores the fact that we're $20 trillion in debt. Let the states expand Medicaid and pay the additional money.

If you believe that, then I hope you weren't one of those calling for an immediate repeal and replace, forcing the need for 60 votes from the get-go.

I recall 6 years of constant "repeal" talk and a 2016 campaign by the GOP and by Trump where you heard "repeal" 90% of the time, and "repeal and replace" maybe 10% of the time. It was only after the election was over and Trump won that we heard a constant daily-talking-points adherence to the phrase "repeal and replace".

It surprises me that people never seem to notice the magical mutations that happen in policy in every administration. The campaign pledges suddenly become something else entirely.

And what kind of subsidy was a middle-class individual, 55-65, going to get under Obamacare? Zero. Obama's subsidies were based on income, not age.

You're kind of missing the point. ObamaCare was intended mostly to provide medical care for an older sicker population at the expense of a younger healthier population. That has been its prime failing in fact.

Spoken like someone who ignores the fact that we're $20 trillion in debt. Let the states expand Medicaid and pay the additional money.

I agree. But it looks like that's what they're shaping up with using amendments in the Senate version. That big Medicaid expansion was due to sunset this year. Now they're talking about yet another 3 years of federal subsidy of the Medicaid expansion. It is completely irresponsible, given the liabilities for entitlement spending they've already incurred.

"I recall 6 years of constant "repeal" talk"

Did you hear, "Repeal all of it and replace all of it on day one"? Perhaps you simply assumed that. That's not my fault.

Do you think it's a smart political move to kick 20 million people off expanded Medicaid on day one?

"The campaign pledges suddenly become something else entirely."

Really? Replacing Obamacare in phases means Trump is reneging on his campaign promise?

Do you think it's a smart political move to kick 20 million people off expanded Medicaid on day one?

A Dem talking point. You should be ashamed.

ObamaCare and its vast freebie Medicaid expansion lasted through 2017. So it would be a year before anything like that could happen.

"ObamaCare was intended mostly to provide medical care for an older sicker population at the expense of a younger healthier population. That has been its prime failing in fact."

I seem to recall that the rallying cry for Obamacare was the claim that we had 20, 30, 40 million uninsured.

The majority of people newly covered under Obamacare were new Medicaid enrollees. They pay nothing into the system. That's the prime failing.

"So it would be a year before anything like that could happen."

An immediate repeal of Obamacare -- what you want -- would terminate the Medicaid expansion program. Immediately.

"Now they're talking about yet another 3 years of federal subsidy of the Medicaid expansion."

To his credit, Paul Ryan wants to end that immediately. I have no idea how many additional people that would mean.

An immediate repeal of Obamacare -- what you want -- would terminate the Medicaid expansion program. Immediately.

0bamaCare remains in place through 2017. Trump said it, congressional leaders say it.

Not immediately. No one ever said that.

However, 0bamaCare was due to slow the federal subsidy of the state Medicaid expansions.

The federal government initially paid for 100% of the expansion (through 2016). The subsidy tapered to 90% by 2020 and continued to shrink thereafter.

So we've had a big Medicaid party at the expense of an exploding federal deficit. And the states want the Medicaid goodies to keep rolling. And plenty of GOP pols are willing to go along, creating a TrumpCare that doesn't differ much from 0bamaCare.

"Not immediately. No one ever said that."

Then why are you whining?

"creating a TrumpCare that doesn't differ much from 0bamaCare."

Oh, please.

The Freedom Caucus is saying today that they have 25 "hard" no votes and at least two strongly leaning no votes.

This was a quick rebound since only a few days ago, as Trump was going to the Capitol to woo the Freedom Caucus and they pre-announced a policy of neutrality on this vote (as scored within the caucus where you have to stick with the caucus on key votes on particular policy issues). So the Freedom Caucus, having ducked a major Trumplosion during his visit to his House harem, is now still very much in opposition.

There were 237 GOP seats in the House with 4 GOP members now appointed to other positions (and 1 Dem who became CA's A.G.).

If the Freedom Caucus really does have 25 hell-no votes, TrumpCare is dead. Unless Ryan backs down and lets them offer more amendments before the vote.

TheHill: Freedom Caucus Opposes AHCA Barring Changes by Wednesday

"If the Freedom Caucus really does have 25 hell-no votes, TrumpCare is dead."

And so are the 25 House members.

If I were Trump, I'd move on to other issues and let the American people go bat-shit crazy on these 25 do-nothing traitors who are forcing them to stay on Obamacare. I'd be surprised if there weren't 25 recall elections -- the hell with waiting for November, 2018.

Only Republicans are stupid enough to do this. Give them control and they don't know what to do with it.

And so are the 25 House members.

Some are from the five states that will lose the most money for their over-55 non-Medicare citizens. And that is an age group that does vote.

I think this is why Trump has been in Kentucky twice recently. Analysis indicates that that is the Trump state that will get hardest hit by TrumpCare, at least under TrumpCare v1.0. This also explains why Rand Paul is very confident at the start of his 6-year term to lead the opposition to TrumpCare in the Senate. As soon as he talks the hard numbers and how those will hit Kentucky, Rand is a hero and Trump will look like a heel.

I think congressmen from those 5 states will find it quite easy to rebuff any Trump-backed primary challengers.

These guys are smart though. They aren't opposing Trump to his face or calling him out in any way that would be disrespectful which Trump would take personally. So they are avoiding his known revenge triggers. And Trump can be pretty vengeful if an opponent lets things get personal with him.

"Some are from the five states that will lose the most money for their over-55 non-Medicare citizens."

True. If you compare the effects of Trump's plan on seniors in 10 years to Obamacare in 10 years, the numbers favor Obamacare.

One problem. If left alone, Obamacare won't be around in 2 years, much less 10.

Too Conservative: Your TV's are overpriced. I can get the same thing down the street for $100 less.
Clerk: Well, sir. Then why don't you?
Too Conservative: He doesn't have any left. So you need to lower your price.

Does that about sum up your argument?

Does that about sum up your argument?

No.

Yuck it up for now. TrumpCare is going down if they don't allow stiff amendments in the House.

Only one waiverer in the FC has turned into a yes vote. There's still one waiverer and 25 "hard no" votes left.

"There's still one waiverer and 25 "hard no" votes left."

Personally, I would tell them to go f**k themselves. If they're going to act like Democrats, treat them like Democrats. We don't need their petty bullshit.

Republicans control 247 seats in the House (the largest in almost 100 years) and these 25 attention-whores are going to block legislation that almost every American wants?

I'd make an example of them and anyone else who gets in the way of reform. When I was done, they'd be lucky not to be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.