From his Benghazi hearing testimony

"I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable."

- his obsession with drastically cutting social programs at a time when so many Americans need them

- his obsession with balancing the budget when interest rates are so low and the so many things point to the problem being a lack of spending / almost nothing pointing to the deficit being a problem

- his backwards social views

I forget how easy mainstream American media goes on him. He makes some interesting points but overall he seems very much like a dogmatic and unimaginative libertarian conservative.

Your use of these as evidence of Paul's irrationality does not seem rational. Instead, they appear as a complaint that he doesn't share the same values as you; and by extension he must be irrational since your values obviously must be rationally chosen.

Actually no, except for my point on social views. A couple assumptions I made are:

1) He wants the American economy to improve

2) He wants to do what it best for Americans as a whole

They seem like reasonable assumptions, correct me if you seem any hole in them please.

I do not think he his actions and these assumed goals are linked in a rational way.