Rand introduces bill to defund Palestinian foreign aid

[fr33]

Why shouldn't we vote to cut aid from Palestine? They are a foreign country.

We should. But the reality is that we are funding both sides of a physical and political war. Cutting funding for one while continuing funding the other. Imagine how many dead people that we'll pay for. But like I said earlier. It won't happen. That's why Rand's doing this. He realizes most Republicans would love to kill off the Palestinians but also knows what it would do to other nations' opinions of us. The globalists in the GOP know this too and would never support this. He's pandering to Republican voters that want Palestinians dead while he knows this bill will never pass.

 

[Revolution9]

Some of you folks will twist anything around to make Rand out to be some kind of political genius. This is him trying to punish the Palestinians for wanting to have international recognition in the ICC to bring well deserved charges against Bizrael, a Rothschild crime kingpin cutout operation for the hiding of stolen goods.. He ain't nothing like his father, and is a shill for the largest organized crime syndicate to ever hit this planet. Adelson is the Capo de tutti capo and Rothschild is the "godfather"..though god ain't appropriate for one that sets a dinner plate out for Satan at their family meals.He is not any kind of trojan horse for Americans. He is an anti-semite. He is an ego tripper looking to occupy the office of POTUS. He will fail hard and if he does squeak in there he will be useless to the purposes that this forum was originally created for.. the freedom of America and the rule of law adhering to Constitutional standards. Good luck with the pretzel twisting logic. Rand is ..need I say.. a drooldonkey. I will poke my head back in when he again makes his further descent into the pits of hell to reiterate what I said back in 2012 when he first visited the wailing wall..actually the remains of an old roman fort and not some temple wall or whatever it has some bogus religious significance of.. Seems to me it is a pagan shrine where funny looking dudes go and have intercourse with the demon Shekinah. May the Lord have mercy on his soul.

Outta here before I get yuck all over my soul...
Rev9

 

[Rudeman]

Sorry not all of us have an anti-Israel fetish. For all of those that say Rand is nothing like his father over this bill, all I would say in return is would Ron Paul support it? The answer would be yes of course but hey lets ignore that because it isn't anti-Israel and may *gasp* benefit Israel. It's kind of funny how some will get their panties in a twist over this issue (even going so low as to neg rep me over their own insecurity).

 

[cajuncocoa]

Sorry not all of us have an anti-Israel fetish. For all of those that say Rand is nothing like his father over this bill, all I would say in return is would Ron Paul support it? The answer would be yes of course but hey lets ignore that because it isn't anti-Israel and may *gasp* benefit Israel. It's kind of funny how some will get their panties in a twist over this issue (even going so low as to neg rep me over their own insecurity).

I don't think Ron would support this bill.

 

[phill4paul]

Outta here before I get yuck all over my soul...
Rev9

 

[William Tell]

I don't think Ron would support this bill.

Why do you think that? All it does is stop/suspends funds we shouldn't be sending anyway.

 

[Brett85]

I don't think Ron would support this bill.

I'm sure he would support it. Ron was for less spending and less intervention overseas. He wasn't anti Israel. This is a bill that cuts spending and reduces our involvement overseas.

 

[Warlord]

I'm sure he would support it. Ron was for less spending and less intervention overseas. He wasn't anti Israel. This is a bill that cuts spending and reduces our involvement overseas.

I'm sure he would support it too .

 

[cajuncocoa]

Why do you think that? All it does is stop/suspends funds we shouldn't be sending anyway.

I'm sure he would support it. Ron was for less spending and less intervention overseas. He wasn't anti Israel. This is a bill that cuts spending and reduces our involvement overseas.

I'm sure he would support it too .

Because unless it ended ALL foreign aid he wouldn't support it. It has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-Israel. It's about foreign aid being Constitutional or not. Ron is a principled man; if this bill has language in it about keeping foreign aid going for Israel, I don't think he'd support it.

 

[William Tell]

Because unless it ended ALL foreign aid he wouldn't support it.

You honestly believe that? Does anyone on this site believe that? That's like saying he would not support ending the NSA without ending the CIA. Or that he would vote against pulling out of Iraq because we would still be in South Korea. I don't believe that for a minute. I don't buy that Ron would just vote against every cut to aid until a bill comes up eliminating it all.

It has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-Israel. It's about foreign aid being Constitutional or not. Ron is a principled man; if this bill has language in it about keeping foreign aid going for Israel, I don't think he'd support it.

The bill only addresses Palestine. Foreign aid is wrong, period, we agree on that. I imagine Ron Paul would support a bill to end aid to any country. I for one would also cheer on a bill ending aid to Israel, regardless of whether it addressed Palestine in any way. Ending aid is good, period.

 

[KingNothing]

My point is that this is clearly a shrewd attempt to score some cheap political points by pandering to the worst elements in the Republican Party. If he authored a bill to withdraw foreign aid to every country (including his perennial BFF, Israel), I'd have boatloads of respect for that.

And authoring the bill you suggest would gain exactly nothing, except the ill-will of a variety of lobbying groups.

I don't understand why anyone is upset with what Rand is doing here, or anywhere, really. He looks to pander and to appeal to populist sentiment where doing so increasing liberty, decreases spending, cuts taxes, or does all of the above. In a Republic or a Democracy this is quite literally the ONLY way to enact change. If he were a dictator, sure, he could propose broad-sweeping changes and bring about everything you'd like to see. Alas, we do not have a king.

 

[KingNothing]

Yes and him introducing a bill to end all foreign aid, vs. ending aid to Israel's enemy have equally as much chance as actually passing.. However, by doing this, he can expose the members that are against it and cut off the future attack of Rand hates Israel argument that no doubt will be used against him. While he may not be flawless, he's playing as good of a game as you're ever going to see.

You, and Rand, understand how to play chess. Those in this thread who are arguing with you don't even know what a checker is. In fact, I think they eat marbles.

 

[philipped]

I stand with Rand. I stand with the United States. I do not stand with AIPAC.

^^^

 

[philipped]

By taking the route that Rand has taken this gives him the possibility of actually winning the presidency instead of simply being a "pure senator" that will never win the presidency. Again, I just hope Rand can hang onto his father's most hardcore supporters before the MSM can squash it before it's of any affect. Hang on guy's, don't fall for their divide and conquer tactics.

Stand With Rand

 

[jjdoyle]

I don't think Ron would support this bill.

Despite some dense people around here that spin like Bill O'Reilly to try and justify inconsistency, this has nothing to do with being anti-Israel as much as they want to try and spin it that way. This has to do with looking at the reasons given for why we were attacked on 9/11, and Rand 100% ignoring that with this bill. This also, IMO, has to do with consistency, something that Rand is lacking on this issue of foreign aid.

I'm not sure if Ron Paul would, or wouldn't, support this bill, but I can almost guarantee 100% that the more recent Congressman Ron Paul would never have voted in favor of more foreign aid to Israel for its Iron Dome project. BUT, if there is one reason Ron Paul would vote against this bill, without even reading it, it would be the very title of it, "

Defend Israel...​

", to which he would probably say Israel can defend itself, and he didn't even need to read the bill any further past its title to know why he was voting against it. It makes us less safe.

 

[Rudeman]

Because unless it ended ALL foreign aid he wouldn't support it. It has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-Israel. It's about foreign aid being Constitutional or not. Ron is a principled man; if this bill has language in it about keeping foreign aid going for Israel, I don't think he'd support it.

Ron Paul supports removing foreign bases, do you think he wouldn't vote for removing just 1?
Ron Paul opposes the wars, do you think he wouldn't vote to end 1?
Ron Paul opposes several government agencies, do you think he wouldn't vote to end 1?


What makes you think Ron Paul believes in all or nothing?

 

[Rudeman]

Despite some dense people around here that spin like Bill O'Reilly to try and justify inconsistency, this has nothing to do with being anti-Israel as much as they want to try and spin it that way. This has to do with looking at the reasons given for why we were attacked on 9/11, and Rand 100% ignoring that with this bill. This also, IMO, has to do with consistency, something that Rand is lacking on this issue of foreign aid.

I'm not sure if Ron Paul would, or wouldn't, support this bill, but I can almost guarantee 100% that the more recent Congressman Ron Paul would never have voted in favor of more foreign aid to Israel for its Iron Dome project. BUT, if there is one reason Ron Paul would vote against this bill, without even reading it, it would be the very title of it, "

Defend Israel...​

", to which he would probably say Israel can defend itself, and he didn't even need to read the bill any further past its title to know why he was voting against it. It makes us less safe.

This has nothing to do with your fetish, so stop being a broken record repeating the same thing over and over again because you are too (mod edit) to discuss the topic at hand.

 

[cajuncocoa]

You honestly believe that? Does anyone on this site believe that? That's like saying he would not support ending the NSA without ending the CIA. Or that he would vote against pulling out of Iraq because we would still be in South Korea. I don't believe that for a minute. I don't buy that Ron would just vote against every cut to aid until a bill comes up eliminating it all.



The bill only addresses Palestine. Foreign aid is wrong, period, we agree on that. I imagine Ron Paul would support a bill to end aid to any country. I for one would also cheer on a bill ending aid to Israel, regardless of whether it addressed Palestine in any way. Ending aid is good, period.

Ron Paul supports removing foreign bases, do you think he wouldn't vote for removing just 1?
Ron Paul opposes the wars, do you think he wouldn't vote to end 1?
Ron Paul opposes several government agencies, do you think he wouldn't vote to end 1?


What makes you think Ron Paul believes in all or nothing?

No, that's not how I meant it. In that case, yes, I suppose Ron would support it. But if the bill has language that could be interpreted as keeping or increasing aid to Isreal, I'm saying then he would not.

 

[jjdoyle]

This has nothing to do with your fetish, so stop being a broken record repeating the same thing over and over again because you are too (mod edit) to discuss the topic at hand.

I'm sorry, what is my fetish? I addressed the topic at hand, even pasting words from the title of this bill in my response, "Defend Israel...". Those words alone, are probably enough of a reason Ron Paul would vote against this bill.

So, while you continue to break the guidelines with your off-topic posts and personal attacks, try instead to address what I said. You didn't.

 

[William Tell]

No, that's not how I meant it. In that case, yes, I suppose Ron would support it. But if the bill has language that could be interpreted as keeping or increasing aid to Isreal, I'm saying then he would not.

You said you don't think he would support this particular bill.

I don't think Ron would support this bill.

I assume you have a reason to say that? what part specifically would be a deal breaker for Ron Paul? http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/DAV15028.pdf