Rand on Fox now, wants more aid to Israel and Ukraine???

[kcchiefs6465]

Progress happens outside the ballot box when you turn your nonviable candidates into viable candidates by turning the public opinion. Progress does not happen in the ballot box when you vote for candidates who can not win.

Rand Paul has a great opportunity to change public opinion. At the least he could challenge it. And I'll give it to you that he has but regardless his statements regarding quite a bit relating to foreign policy have been peculiar at best.

I am afraid Scott Horton was right. It wouldn't be a good thing for Rand Paul to debate anyone knowledgeable in US foreign policy. He would get smoked. And I'm not saying that to be negative but he isn't coming from a position of principled fact, he is attempting to play their game. People serious about the topic are just shaking their head and the people who take theirs cues from whatever media source they do can tell something is not quite there.

 

[cajuncocoa]

"We" are the half or third of voters who are closest to your own position.

If you view all other candidates the same then that makes sense. I disagree with the premise though - all other candidates are not the same and some are clearly better than others. If it's going to be "If someone else wins it doesn't matter which one it is because they're all the same anyway", I just don't see that as being the case. Especially when you are suggesting that Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton are so close to the "there is no difference between the two" category that you are barely decided for Rand.

I said no such thing. I made it as clear as I possibly could that I wasn't including Rand in this. In fact, I clearly said that I would vote 3rd party or stay home IF Rand didn't win the GOP nomination. (see below)

Who is "we", and what makes you think I have a 2nd choice?

In 2008, and again in 2012, Ron was my only choice among Republican candidates. I was able to vote for Ron in the 2008 general election because a 3rd party put him on the Louisiana ballot (maybe you think I should have voted for John McCain) and in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, seeing no real difference between Obama and Romney. If Rand doesn't get the GOP nod in 2016, I can tell you right now that I will vote LP if I vote at all. I don't have a 2nd choice among GOP candidates.

As for your first sentence, I don't vote for half of some collective of voters. I vote for me.

 

[Crashland]

So, when you have a candidate going against the majority of public opinion, or not using words that would turn the public opinion in their favor, what would you call that?
And voting for candidates that can win, you know what that gets you?
Apparently $17+ trillion worth of national debt.

No matter how you vote, if none of the fiscally sound candidates are capable of winning then you will get $17 trillion either way. So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others.

I think the issue here is that knowing your candidate will not win, do you care which of the actually contending candidates does win? If your answer is no then what you are both saying is logically consistent, but we disagree about that premise.

I said no such thing. I made it as clear as I possibly could that I wasn't including Rand in this. In fact, I clearly said that I would vote 3rd party or stay home IF Rand didn't win the GOP nomination. (see below)

Sorry, my bad, that was not you. I was thinking back to jkob's post which I initially responded to which triggered your criticism. That original post was more about being on the edge of supporting Rand.

 

[jjdoyle]

No matter how you vote, if none of the fiscally sound candidates are capable of winning then you will get $17 trillion either way. So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others.

I think the issue here is that knowing your candidate will not win, do you care which of the actually contending candidates does win? If your answer is no then what you are both saying is logically consistent, but we disagree about that premise.

Well, at this point in history, that would be NEITHER the Republicans or Democrats. It seems now both are for spending BILLIONS overseas. A certain 2008 presidential candidate basically said the Democrats probably wouldn't be as bad, because at least they would be trying to spend the money at home. Now though, we have them both spending it overseas, at ridiculous rates.

But for example, if Hillary is running on fixing ObamaCare, and a Republican is running on defending Israel and getting rid of ObamaCare, by your, "So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others." I would have to say voting for Hillary would make more sense in that example, because she is allocating money here in the U.S. Not that I believe funding will ever stop, but just the Democrats tend to run more on spending/keeping money at home though their results are horrid, while the Republicans have been running on 9/11 and military spending since 2001.

 

[Shalom]

Rand used the "iron dome" thing to plant the seed of a defensive military strategy in the U.S. as opposed to a interventionist strategy. And seemed to suggest that we could benefit by the Israelis sharing their "iron dome" technology with us. Brilliant, in my opinion.

And what makes iron dome defensive? The purpose of anti-missile defenses is to allow a country or a military power to engage in unlimited acts of aggression without any fear of effective retaliation. Israel is engaging in a massive bombing campaign because there is no arab deterrent. Iron dome has probably saved some Israeli lives, but it is also killing Palestinian children. Under a regime of mutual assured destruction, those children would live to adulthood and have children of their own.

Anti-missile defenses aimed at Russia are no different. The purpose of American anti-missile defense is to enable a nuclear first strike against the people of Russia. The idea is that, if you destroy all of the Russian missiles, they can't retaliate, and you can survive a nuclear war. Of course, the Russians are not suicidal, so they will respond to our missile defenses by improving upon and increasing their offensive missiles so that an American first strike does not happen. In this way, the cold war nuclear arms race will be revived.

 

[Crashland]

And what makes iron dome defensive? The purpose of anti-missile defenses is to allow a country or a military power to engage in unlimited acts of aggression without any fear of effective retaliation. Israel is engaging in a massive bombing campaign because there is no arab deterrent. Iron dome has probably saved some Israeli lives, but it is also killing Palestinian children. Under a regime of mutual assured destruction, those children would live to adulthood and have children of their own.

Anti-missile defenses aimed at Russia are no different. The purpose of American anti-missile defense is to enable a nuclear first strike against the people of Russia. The idea is that, if you destroy all of the Russian missiles, they can't retaliate, and you can survive a nuclear war. Of course, the Russians are not suicidal, so they will respond to our missile defenses by improving upon and increasing their offensive missiles so that an American first strike does not happen. In this way, the cold war nuclear arms race will be revived.

I don't really agree with that. Investing in defense is not really offense just because it would give you a strategic advantage if you were to go on offense. There is no such thing as a defense which doesn't do that. You can't have a defense that only works when someone else initiates the conflict.

 

[nayjevin]

2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting

 

[kcchiefs6465]

2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting

Two more years of bad foreign policy votes and rhetoric and you'll be surprised at the lack of support.

 

[dillo]

2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting

Yea but I dont think Rand can take on the establishment unless he has the grassroots support of at least a comparable level to that of Ron Pauls

 

[Anti Federalist]

Can anyone explain to me why sending arms and money to Ukraine is in the United States best interest? I mean lets say even if Rand is pandering to some in the Republican party what is the logic behind supporting Ukraine or going against the rebels, why do we even care?

On the Iron Dome thing though I agree with Rand, we have been and should be looking into and funding those technologies for future national security although I start to get concerned when we are funding directly the applications of those systems in Israel for obvious world politic implications.

Because Putin and Russia suck, ya damn commie surrender monkey.

Ewe Ess Ay!

Ewe Ess Ay!

Ewe Ess Ay!

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Uhm, I just listened to it.
@ the 2:20 mark. are you referring to the part where he says "uh yeah, I've seen the iron dome system firsthand" then later says he has proposed we might be able to have such a system in the US. Then at the end says it is a good idea to work together. I don't see that as him affirming increasing aid to them for the project.

@ the 3:20 mark that one is a big more disappointing. he says he has "been in favor of helping the Ukrainian people with arms or monetary support." I don't like that one bit; but its a bit nebulous. I'd like to hear specifically what he is in favor of because neither of those have been in his proposals he has made publically. If it just means selling them arms or monetary support meaning trade deals, that would be fine with me and still count as a factual statement.

In neither bit did he actually say he wants to give more aid to either country; but rather did his usual tightrope walking and obfuscation.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/04/rand-paul-ive-never-proposed-cutting-off-aid-to-israel/

Relevant quote:

I voted just this week to give money—more money—to the Iron Dome, so don’t mischaracterize my position on Israel.”

His original interview was indeed an affirmation of Bolling's assertion that we increase aid to Israel. Friendly interviews are screened beforehand by staff, typically with lists of topics up for discussion as a heads up. Rand knew what Bolling was going to ask and what the question was about.

 

[idiom]

Rand has gone full Israel.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-never-proposed-ending-foreign-aid-to-israel/

Omaha, Nebraska (CNN) – Sen. Rand Paul denied Monday that he had ever proposed legislation that would end foreign aid for Israel, despite the Kentucky Republican’s efforts to end all foreign aid.

“I haven’t really proposed that in the past,” Paul told reporters when asked if he still stood by his call to stop all foreign aid, given the unrest in Israel and Gaza.

Man.

Two years to go, wonder how much else he will feel the need to fold on. :/

 

[TheTexan]

Rand has gone full Israel.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-never-proposed-ending-foreign-aid-to-israel/



Man.

Two years to go, wonder how much else he will feel the need to fold on. :/

Does it really matter at this point? For those who buy into the "surprise freedom" strategy (I dont), all that really matters is that he wins

 

[mad cow]

Rand has gone full Israel.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-never-proposed-ending-foreign-aid-to-israel/





Man.

Two years to go, wonder how much else he will feel the need to fold on. :/

Does this mean that you won't vote for Rand Paul for President of New Zealand if he 'Folds' anymore?

Pity.

 

[cindy25]

now O'Reilly has picked up on the flip-flop. called Rand untruthful. Rand made a huge mistake. MSM hates him, and he was not ready.

O'Reilly is replayed in a couple of hours if anyone wants to watch the segment

 

[Natural Citizen]

now O'Reilly has picked up on the flip-flop. called Rand untruthful. Rand made a huge mistake. MSM hates him, and he was not ready.

O'Reilly is replayed in a couple of hours if anyone wants to watch the segment

He'd do well to separate himself from the mainstream media anyhow. What I mean by that are the opinion shows like this. They're going down. Why go down with them? He will you know...it's not too late.

 

[cindy25]

all media is good at this point, with you are prepared; and Rand was not prepared for Wolf Blitzer's questions. better to resolve these positions now, when only political nerds are watching.

Rand is still the best hope for 2016 by far, but he is naive. the MSM hates him. blacks won't vote Republican, and the religious right will back Huck. those are facts.

 

[Warlord]

all media is good at this point, with you are prepared; and Rand was not prepared for Wolf Blitzer's questions. better to resolve these positions now, when only political nerds are watching.

Rand is still the best hope for 2016 by far, but he is naive. the MSM hates him. blacks won't vote Republican, and the religious right will back Huck. those are facts.

The MSM does;t hate him.

 

[bolil]

I'd have to sit down with the man before I could make up my mind. I am okay with Rand being Machiavellian in the Machiavellian world of US politics, but I would like to know where his heart really is. Also, "Fight not with monsters, lest you become one, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." If its a show to get elected NOW there is no telling whether that show will by degrees become the man.