cheapseats
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his father’s brand
- Thread starter Agorism
- Start date
We only have that commitment if the people of this nation choose it. The people, through their representatives, would have to vote for it in a Rand Paul presidency. Rand would have no authority to stop them.
cheapseats
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
I get that some people LOVE Rand unconditionally...trust him, give him the benefit of the doubt, yada yada. Some DON'T.
I get that the "winning is everything" people not only don't CARE about alienating Ron Paul's hardcore base but kinda WANT to lose association with those "embarrassing" (impassioned & committed) activists. But HYPERBOLE about Rand Paul is off-putting to Fence Sitters. Word to unwise.
FOUR YEARS of hyperbolically pimping Rand is likelier to rekindle the passions of those OUTSIDE the Moovement who despise Paul the Elder than to win over those in the Moovement who are UNDERSTANDABLY looking askance at Paul the Younger.
Last edited:
The separation of powers also gives the people, through their representatives, the right to decide if they want those alliances. alliances = bad, constitution = good
belian78
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,004
You know what LE, you sure as hell don't either. I used to respect you on this site, why I really don't know other than you are ALWAYS here giving your opinion, and I can't even remember you getting active in any of the projects member of this site have organized now that I think about it. Anymore all you do is shout down anyone that resembles those of us who were around in the early days. Principles be damned, if we aren't looking to put on a front to make nice with the machine, we are ignorant peons needing to be browbeat back into line. The other posters are correct, I don't know if you're looking to work within the liberty movement so much as make the republican party palatable again. I'm thinking Beck's boards or a part time job filling in with Levin might fit a little better for you.
iakobos
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 27
Good point. What Rand could have said, if he wanted to appease both sides of the issue is, "If Israel is attacked and if the United States House of Representatives passes a declaration of war against the attacking nation, then as President I would prosecute the war." Neither side would be totally happy with that but it's a more Constitutional answer. Instead of that we got typical neo-con blather about war no matter what.
I'm still suffering severe disappointment from Rand's statements.
itshappening
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 12,355
He has said repeatedly no war without congress say so.
They would obviously say yes if Israel got attacked
cheapseats
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
Trotting out the THEORY of "representative government" would be LAUGHABLE, if any of this were funny.
Yes, and now he is saying he would execute a war, with strengh, on behalf of the american people, if those people chose it. This is Ron's position also.
belian78
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,004
Keeping with the line of "An attack on Israel is an attack on the USA" will surely make it so as well. This is the problem with making statements like this, he is keeping that mental 'must protect israel at all costs' circlejerk alive. This is why I respected Ron so much, he didn't mince words, he is breaking the mental bondage. Rand is using that mental bondage to 'try and infiltrate' but all he will do is lose himself in the process.
Rand paul would not take the power to declare war upon himself. Because of that he would restore that power to the people, at least while he was president. That is not laughable.
Last edited:
Rand is using their own rhetoric against them, and giving their rhetoric an honest meaning.
A Son of Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,514
Why should I, as person of principle and supporter of Ron Paul based upon his unequivocating principled positions, vote for Rand based upon the "theory" that what he is saying is not what he believes, but what he believes will garner him votes among the presumably easily duped Republican electorate?
belian78
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,004
I would love to delude myself into believing that. But what happens when time comes to put rubber to road persay? If he doesn't back up his rhetoric with action, all the neocons and sociocons will abandon him. If he does back up the rhetoric, well.... losing us liberty lovers will be the least of the issues stemming from those actions.
I would personally rather have someone that is unflinching in both their principles and rhetoric, those are the men that I said I would protect with my life. So far, there's only been one, Ron Paul.
Think about it: he can not, as president, declare war or choose which allies to defend. He will back up his words, but he has never promised to declare an unconstitutional war.
belian78
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,004
Really? Obama has 4 years of new wars all over the place that would like a word with you.
cheapseats
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
Why?
Right, but Obama chose to take that power upon himself, even though it is unconstitutional. Rand is arguing that it is wrong for Obama to do that. As president, Rand would have the power to choose to obey the constitution. If you think that Rand is lying, fine. I have no reason to beleive that he lies.
cheapseats
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
It is laughable to suppose that ANYONE is gonna sashay into the corner office and, poof, reverse the UNREPRESENTATIVE imperiousness of a CONGRESS GONE WILD.
Anyone who imagines that Democrats will not try to obstruct Republicans at every turn...same as Republicans have tried to obstruct Obama...IS, indeed, imagining.
For Rand to "simply" DO what Supporters want him to do and think he will do, he'd have to resort to...you guessed it...EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
Last edited:
Similar threads
