Lindsey Graham compares Donald Trump's foreign policy to Rand Paul calling it isolationist

[dude58677]

https://mobile.twitter.com/lindseygrahamsc?lang=en



http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...sey-graham-donald-trump-foreign-policy-222549

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I hate that damn missiles queen so much I want to break stuff every time I hear it's name.

 

[hells_unicorn]

At this juncture, I'm kinda looking forward to seeing Trump get the nomination just on the off chance that this piece of sodomite filth leaves the GOP and goes back where he belongs. All of these Neo-cons belong in the Democratic Party alongside Hilldog.

 

[RandallFan]

What's disgusting is Daily Beast and Raw Story are happy to have more and more "brown babies" bombed in the mideast,etc. if it means putting evil non-privilege-checking Trump in his place.

Not that Trump is perfect but he's going to drop less bombs than Graham's list of alternatives.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Some folks might just call that "enlightened", Lindsey.

 

[Rad]

Neither Trump or Rand are non-interventionist. They both say the Iran deal is bad, that our allies need to help fight their own people whom they fund, and that there is this critter called Radical Islam (hush hush) that Obama is afraid to name which we are at war with. Also they both think that presidents Clinton through Obama's interventions in the Middle East made a mess (which they did). They both kissed up to AIPAC.

Trump is promising to run the Empire better and make the rest of the world help pay for it. If Trump was less xenophobic and didn't think the last couple presidents didn't make mistakes on foreign policy Graham would come out of the closet and like him better. Trump may criticize the president but his speeches have showed a lack of understanding of the Middle East that will result in his own messes. He wants to help countries that are threatened by Radical Islam, but I'm sure he doesn't mean the Shia based ones whom Israel and Saudi Arabia hate.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Trump is promising to run the Empire better and make the rest of the world help pay for it.

Trump hasn't said we should force people to pay for it. He just says we should remove our bases and stop protecting them unless they pay for it.

This is a libertarian solution to reducing our military presence - although the solution that we charge for those who want it is usually left out.

And this is actually a more practical solution. For those countries with no or little military, such as japan or saudi arabia, they may not want us to immediately pull out or until they have time to build there own. This provides a better way to get there when immediate pulling out can't work.

 

[Rad]

Trump hasn't said we should force people to pay for it. He just says we should remove our bases and stop protecting them unless they pay for it.

This is a libertarian solution to reducing our military presence - although the solution that we charge for those who want it is usually left out.

And this is actually a more practical solution. For those countries with no or little military, such as japan or saudi arabia, they may not want us to immediately pull out or until they have time to build there own. This provides a better way to get there when immediate pulling out can't work.

If there is a war wouldn't you rather someone else fight it for you instead of getting shot at yourself?

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

If there is a war wouldn't you rather someone else fight it for you instead of getting shot at yourself?

Sure. But that isn't happening instantaneously.

 

[Matt Collins]

Neither Trump or Rand are non-interventionist.

Wrong... try again

 

[Ronin Truth]

War is a racket!

 

[Rad]

Wrong... try again

Someone who is a non-interventionist would not be pumping up made up threats, or ones that do not concern us, as well as trying to increase the military budget. I've stated why they both aren't non-interventionist. I don't know what is in their hearts but the internet has their words.

 

[Matt Collins]

Someone who is a non-interventionist would not be pumping up made up threats, or ones that do not concern us, as well as trying to increase the military budget. I've stated why they both aren't non-interventionist. I don't know what is in their hearts but the internet has their words.

Rand is not trying to increase the military budget, and in fact he wants to audit the Pentagon. He also does not want to intervene anywhere.

 

[erowe1]

Trump hasn't said we should force people to pay for it. He just says we should remove our bases and stop protecting them unless they pay for it.

This is a libertarian solution to reducing our military presence - although the solution that we charge for those who want it is usually left out.

And this is actually a more practical solution. For those countries with no or little military, such as japan or saudi arabia, they may not want us to immediately pull out or until they have time to build there own. This provides a better way to get there when immediate pulling out can't work.

Notice how shamelessly you're defending Trump.

 

[Rad]

Rand is not trying to increase the military budget, and in fact he wants to audit the Pentagon. He also does not want to intervene anywhere.

Rand Paul Proposes Boosting Defense Spending: "His amendment would add $76.5 billion to the defense budget"
http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

 

[Matt Collins]

Rand Paul Proposes Boosting Defense Spending: "His amendment would add $76.5 billion to the defense budget"
http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

That was a strategic move to get lawmakers on the record voting against cutting foreign aid without being able to whine about cutting defense spending. Rand doesn't really want to increase spending anywhere. Remember, this is chess, not checkers.

 

[Rad]

That was a strategic move to get lawmakers on the record voting against cutting foreign aid without being able to whine about cutting defense spending. Rand doesn't really want to increase spending anywhere. Remember, this is chess, not checkers.

He was still trying to feed the monster even if he was taking it from other areas. He played chess and Ted Cruz out played him and checkmated him.

He doesn't sound like a non-interventionist here. Rand: "The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage."

"We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS."

"Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles."
http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

He even titles it:
Rand Paul: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’

 

[nikcers]

Neither Trump or Rand are non-interventionist. They both say the Iran deal is bad, that our allies need to help fight their own people whom they fund, and that there is this critter called Radical Islam (hush hush) that Obama is afraid to name which we are at war with. Also they both think that presidents Clinton through Obama's interventions in the Middle East made a mess (which they did). They both kissed up to AIPAC.

Trump is promising to run the Empire better and make the rest of the world help pay for it. If Trump was less xenophobic and didn't think the last couple presidents didn't make mistakes on foreign policy Graham would come out of the closet and like him better. Trump may criticize the president but his speeches have showed a lack of understanding of the Middle East that will result in his own messes. He wants to help countries that are threatened by Radical Islam, but I'm sure he doesn't mean the Shia based ones whom Israel and Saudi Arabia hate.

If only there was a way to look up a candidates policy on his website

Rand Paul Supports a Strong National Defense

I believe the most important function of our Federal Government is national security. As a Senator, one of the most important votes I could ever make is on a Declaration of War.
Today, with the continued rise of threats like ISIS, we’re seeing the results of President Obama’s misguided foreign policy.
That’s why I believe it’s critical we look to the guidance the Founders passed down to us as we debate how best to defend our great nation.
The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war.
We must maintain this important check and balance, and the decision to wage war should not be taken lightly.

I believe in Ronald Reagan’s “Peace through Strength.” I will continue to stand with Israel and our allies abroad.

 

[Rad]

If only there was a way to look up a candidates policy on his website

Its still no concern to us regardless if Congress approves.

This is the definition of non-interventionism: "abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/non-interventionism

 

[Matt Collins]

He was still trying to feed the monster even if he was taking it from other areas. He played chess and Ted Cruz out played him and checkmated him.

He doesn't sound like a non-interventionist here. Rand: "The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage."

"We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS."

"Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles."
http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/

He even titles it:
Rand Paul: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’

You have to read between the lines.

I know what Rand was up to, and I know what he really believes.

I also know that he lost many people in the grassroots over things like this because he was playing at a much higher level than many in the grassroots could understand. And he completely failed in keeping them on board by communicating to them what he was up to. And then there were some who refused to give him an opportunity. There is plenty of blame on both sides.

But no, Rand is not an interventionist.