What would President Rand Paul do about the Ukraine crisis and poverty?

In an interview with journalistic juggernaut “World Nut Daily” this weekend, Rand Paul–the CPAC Presidential straw poll winner–was hilariously asked “What is wrong with the people who don’t understand why conservatism works, and why liberty is so important?”

He then diagnosed libruls with what he calls “big heart-small brain syndrome”–by which, I suppose, he means we are nice and all, but not as smart as Rand Paul. This is, naturally, a great thing to go around saying if you want to be President.

First of all, let’s take a look at that question ourselves! First of all, if conservatism worked, then nothing would have ever changed in the first place. We’d all still be Industrial Revolutioning it up with long hours and zero labor laws, and women and minorities would be totally effing screwed. Second of all, “liberty” means different things to different people. For instance, to Rand Paul, it means giving Woolworth’s the liberty to have a “whites-only” lunch counter, and to us, it means giving people the liberty to eat any damn place they please.

Second, let’s discuss how much smarter Rand Paul is than we are! This weekend, he was asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace about how he would respond to Russia invading Ukraine.

Via Think Progress:

“I would do something differently from the president,” Paul said. “I would immediately get every obstacle out of the way for our export of oil and gas, and I would begin drilling in every possible conceivable place within our territories in order to have production we can supply Europe with if it’s interrupted from Ukraine.”

Oh gosh! What a great idea that would be. Except for the part where the President is not even sort of in charge of where private companies export their oil. As Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations points out, not only would drilling up all of America still not provide enough oil to put a dent in the market, but it wouldn’t even be profitable for us to sell oil and natural gas to Europe because of how far away it is. It would be more profitable to sell that shit to Asia.

To boot, it is not as if one can magically just go ahead and “drill for oil” in every conceivable possible place and have it ready to ship off to Europe in a week or so. It would take years to set up the facilities, not to mention billions of dollars. Putin could be dead and gone and we could be floating around on hoverboards by then. Not to mention that even if this were possible, as the New York Times Editorial Board points out, Putin could just lower the prices to keep Europe from switching over to American gas.

SMART POINTS: Us, 1, Rand Paul, 0

Now, in the WND article referenced above, Paul suggests that liberals keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results–for instance, giving poor people money. He suggests a radical new policy involving simply giving tax cuts to “business owners and job creators.” Which, I am pretty sure might also be called “supply-side economics” or–as we like to call it–“trickle down economics.”

Supply-side economics has always been a bit of a hobby-horse for conservatives, who feel much more comfortable with giving money to people who already have it rather than people who don’t. However, the reason it’s pretty much a joke now is because when you give money to people who already have it, they just put it in their savings account. They do not then take it and hire more people than necessary, or give their employees raises. If shit worked like that, do you seriously think that CEOs would be making like 400 times what the average worker makes? God no. There is basically no point to giving money to people who already have more than they could possibly spend in their lifetime.

To boot, we have tried it, we’ve tried it for years, and we’ve found that it doesn’t work. Whereas studies have shown that yes, giving money to poor people does, in fact work, and studies have shown that poor children whose parents received Mother’s Pensions (an early form of welfare in which poor people were given unconditional cash transfers) were healthier in the long run than poor children whose parents didn’t.

SMART POINTS: Us, 2, Rand Paul 0

My favorite part of the WND interview, however, was this gem about the French Revolution:

“I personally think that faith and tradition and virtue are important parts of all of our issues,” said Paul, a devout Christian.

“But I also know that our country is somewhat divided on some of these issues, and even our party is (divided),” he said. “So, I think sometimes, we will have to agree to disagree.

“Ultimately, a democracy needs that stability,” he added.

Paul explained how the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution was instructive.

“We had the underpinnings of our religion and our families (while) the French sort of descended into chaos.

What? So, they didn’t have families in France during the French Revolution now? Call me crazy but I’m pretty sure there were families during the French Revolution. Clearly, this is something he just pulled right out of his ass. Certainly, there was a great deal of sentiment against the First Estate, but it was well earned, given that the Catholic Church was incredibly corrupt and had far too much control over the country.

Not to mention the fact that it’s not like all the families of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers were all “Donna Reed Show” or anything. I mean, Ben Franklin could only “common-law” marry his wife because she was already married to another dude who wouldn’t give her a divorce and marrying Franklin would have made her a bigamist, and together they raised his “illegitimate” son. And, well, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings? Enough said.

SMART POINTS: Us, 3, Rand Paul 0

I could go on, but in conclusion, perhaps Rand Paul may not want to go around running his mouth off about how much smarter conservatives are than liberals. I mean, let’s face it–there is a reason that the more education a person has, the more liberal they are likely to be.