Rand endorses recent Pakistan drone strikes against Americans

[hells_unicorn]

Arguing human lives are "collateral damage" is one of the most vile, dehumanizing arguments one can make. Human lives aren't eggs that you accidentally drop on the floor and, "Oh, well, guess we'll just have throw these away." No, innocent lives do NOT have to die. They end up getting slaughtered because politicians like Rand Paul can't be bothered to defend their lives and call for the end of the violence that wastes them.

You're not ready for prime time yet if this is your viewpoint. It's not about what is right or wrong in universal terms, because the people that count don't think in universals, it's not the "American Way". It is what you can convince the "American People" of that matters if you are running for office, and the American people still tend to wave flags like retarded children with a baton when the word "Al Qaeda" is mentioned.

But to agree with you in part, innocent people indeed do not have to die. But they will, again and again, and there is little to be done for it at this stage of the game. This is the ugly face of what people call "democracy", a system where the truth is subject to the whims of idiots en masse, usually with a small group of sinister people manipulating them like marionettes.

It's not that Rand Paul can't be bothered to defend lives, it's that most voters can't be bothered with someone who doesn't tell them what they want to hear.

P.S. - I would also like to echo Radiofriendly's sentiments about David Weigel, the guy is basically a snake in the grass. The most dangerous enemy you have is one that is adept at making you see him as an ally.

 

[garyallen59]

Watch the video:



The media is using hyperbole and it works. The video offers clarity and definitely isn't a change in Rand's position on drones.

 

[dumbdumb]

When you make the choice to move from the United States to another country to join a group dedicated to killing Americans, in my opinion you no longer fall under the protection of the constitution.

 

[wizardwatson]

People who cannot comprehend the nuance in rands approach irritate the shit out of me.

You were here in 2007. People couldn't comprehend Ron's straightforward, tell-it-like-it-is, speak the truth approach and you think Rand is going to have an easier time with his sheep in wolves clothing strategy?

RON was a "hail mary" I don't even know what to classify Rand as.

 

[Sola_Fide]

dang it...i might have to support cruz then if rand is gonna flip on something so major

Cruz is worse than McCain.

 

[dumbdumb]

RON was a "hail mary" I don't even know what to classify Rand as.

quarterback sneak...

 

[Sola_Fide]

I admit, when I saw the headline I was really dismayed, but then I watched the video and I was less dismayed. Still dismayed though.

 

[hells_unicorn]

When you make the choice to move from the United States to another country to join a group dedicated to killing Americans, in my opinion you no longer fall under the protection of the constitution.

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to make an example out of you, but I want everybody in this thread to read your words, because this is the basic attitude of the average GOP voter, whom Rand Paul MUST play to in order to win. If anyone here wants to jump ship over something like this, you'll have a bright future being the less than 1% of people who vote Libertarian and are viewed as a non-factor by everybody else. I've done this myself for 4 presidential elections and frankly I'm tired of it. Accept that right or wrong, you are in the minority and democracy dictates that you don't get your way, then you can begin understanding what it takes to actually reshape the discussion.

 

[dannno]

I don't see any changes in his position here.

If only there was some way you folks could count to a metaphorical 10 once in a while. Sheesh.

+rep

 

[Sam I am]

Rand's never been anti-drones per-se.

Even back when he had that filibuster, the next day he did make it clear that it wasn't the actual drones that he had any issue with, the problem was extra-legal executions that were performed with drones.

Now, whether or not Rand considers this particular strike to be an extra-legal execution might be an interesting question, but the whole notion of whether or not drones were used is a big red herring.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't see any changes in his position here.

That doesn't matter to the media. (I was just reporting what I saw on tv.)

Yeah, I don't see any change in philosophy from Rand in this instance. No US citizens were targets of this strike.

I would question whether it was an "active war zone". Are we at war with Pakistan? Was a battle going on there? Did the Pakistan government request air support? No doubt most in Congress would say that this act of war was authorized by Congress already.

 

[dumbdumb]

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to make an example out of you, but I want everybody in this thread to read your words, because this is the basic attitude of the average GOP voter, whom Rand Paul MUST play to in order to win. If anyone here wants to jump ship over something like this, you'll have a bright future being the less than 1% of people who vote Libertarian and are viewed as a non-factor by everybody else. I've done this myself for 4 presidential elections and frankly I'm tired of it. Accept that right or wrong, you are in the minority and democracy dictates that you don't get your way, then you can begin understanding what it takes to actually reshape the discussion.

No offence taken as I'm completely aware that I am not as "hard core" libertarian as some on here... Until Ron in 2007 I was strictly republican and didn't even know what a libertarian was to be honest. That being said I tend to follow the saying "progress, not perfection" which is what allowed me to open my mind to all of this 8 years ago in the first place and also to support Rand passionately even if I do not agree with his every word....

 

[jllundqu]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-defends-obama-drone-strikes/




Rand Paul Defends Drone Killings of Americans in Al Qaeda

Bloomberg-3 hours ago
In the days after the Obama administration revealed that drone strikes [...]—Kentucky Senator Rand Paul remained fairly quiet.

Rand Paul defends Obama on drone strike that killed hostages
USA TODAY-2 hours ago
Rand Paul defends Obama, drone strikes
CBS News-9 minutes ago
Rand Paul goes full Strangelove: The “anti-drone” candidate is okay ...
In-Depth-Salon-9 minutes ago
Rand Paul backs Obama's botched drone strike. This is not as ...
Blog-Washington Post (blog)-1 hour ago







http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-live-obama-speaks-from-white-house-on-death-of-american-hostage/




previously:

I think it's really sad that Ron Paul just came out with a video talking about how horrible it was that American's were killed and Rand comes out and gives his usual squishy non-principled stance on a very crucial issue.

Is it too late for a Ron Paul 2016 campaign?

 

[wizardwatson]

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to make an example out of you, but I want everybody in this thread to read your words, because this is the basic attitude of the average GOP voter, whom Rand Paul MUST play to in order to win. If anyone here wants to jump ship over something like this, you'll have a bright future being the less than 1% of people who vote Libertarian and are viewed as a non-factor by everybody else. I've done this myself for 4 presidential elections and frankly I'm tired of it. Accept that right or wrong, you are in the minority and democracy dictates that you don't get your way, then you can begin understanding what it takes to actually reshape the discussion.

Yes, we should pander to the war hawks. That's such a great strategy.

I mean it isn't like the Ron Paul R3VOLution was started as an anti-war movement or anything.

Once we lie our way into power, we'll calmly explain to all those we duped that we actually despise them and intend on dismantling everything they stand for.

Where do I mail my check?

 

[specsaregood]

That doesn't matter to the media.

To the media, of course not. But it never ceases to amaze me how easily or willingly to be fooled some people here on rpfs are.

 

[dannno]

I think it's really sad that Ron Paul just came out with a video talking about how horrible it was that American's were killed and Rand comes out and gives his usual squishy non-principled stance on a very crucial issue.

Is it too late for a Ron Paul 2016 campaign?

This whole strategy is obviously going way over your head.

I like Ron Paul more than any politician or ex-politician, but he isn't going to win the Presidency. Very sad, but true. THIS is how Rand wins.

The person they killed was holding innocent American hostages. Not soldiers, aid workers. Ya, there is a lot of background that could be told about our foreign policy and how that situation all came to be, that was Ron's job. He woke up as many people as he could.

Now it's Rand's turn to take the White House and actually push us in a better direction.

Are you ready to ride the wave or are you just going to get in the way?

 

[jct74]

Unsurprised. The pity here is that very few will question this if they support him. Obama murders American citizens, Rand Paul proclaims his support for assassinating Americans.

Only if they are engaged in combat (see video). Rand has said this exact same thing all along since the filibuster. So this flip-flop narrative being put out by Salon, TPM, Raw Story is a bunch of bullshit (as usual).

 

[jllundqu]

Yes, we should pander to the war hawks. That's such a great strategy.

I mean it isn't like the Ron Paul R3VOLution was started as an anti-war movement or anything.

Once we lie our way into power, we'll calmly explain to all those we duped that we actually despise them and intend on dismantling everything they stand for.

Where do I mail my check?

+rep

Interesting that we are having this debate on RON Paul Forums, huh? But the apologists here will downplay and defend. They all howl about intellectual honesty and standing for principles, then can't rush to defend fast enough things that Ron Paul himself would find deplorable...

 

[presence]

Only if they are engaged in combat (see video). Rand has said this exact same thing all along since the filibuster. So this flip-flop narrative being put out by Salon, TPM, Raw Story is a bunch of bullshit (as usual).

Rand is extending the definition of "involved in combat" to include individuals affiliated with people who are holding hostages, but not currently in the same location as the hostages or the hostage holders. He also seems ok with labelling individuals as being "involved in combat" via intelligence that was ignorant to the location of said hostages or their keepers.



That seems a bit outside of the realm of "involved in combat".

 

[jct74]

+rep

Interesting that we are having this debate on RON Paul Forums, huh? But the apologists here will downplay and defend. They all howl about intellectual honesty and standing for principles, then can't rush to defend fast enough things that Ron Paul himself would find deplorable...

I'm not that familiar with the case, but what is so deplorable about killing people that are holding other Americans hostage?