Rand Paul discusses immigration reform, Iran and Benghazi - WMAL Radio 1/31/2013

the heck he means all options are on the table?
he voted against preemptive war, what other options does he have...
 
Last edited:
I'll just wait until teh Collins or Rands chief of staff tells me what it is he REALLY means.
 
He really is risking losing support from the liberty movement if he's going to leave the option of pre-emptive war on the table.
 
And he said it's something the government should be considering.

When did he say that? He said everything is on the table, so everything is possible, but he didn't really endorse it as his preferable solution. Rand was in a really tight situation, the host was pushing him to back pre-emptive war. He didn't really sound like he was in total agreement with the host.
 
When did he say that? He said everything is on the table, so everything is possible, but he didn't really endorse it as his preferable solution. Rand was in a really tight situation, the host was pushing him to back pre-emptive war. He didn't really sound like he was in total agreement with the host.

He should've flat out said that he opposes pre-emptive war. That would've been the correct answer. I don't think it's worth it for Rand to win if he has to adopt full out neo-conservative positions on foreign policy issues.
 
He should've flat out said that he opposes pre-emptive war. That would've been the correct answer. I don't think it's worth it for Rand to win if he has to adopt full out neo-conservative positions on foreign policy issues.

He isn't really outright adopting a neo-conservative position. He just knows how to address his audience properly, which he does so by blurring his stance, he doesn't want to lose these people's support, especially after the Clinton questioning, the Egypt F16 bill and the gun control "King Obama" thing which won a lot of Republicans over. His tone is normally different when speaking to a libertarian audience.
 
Last edited:
He isn't really adopting a neo-conservative position. He just knows how to address his audience properly, which he does so by blurring his stance, he doesn't want to lose these people's support, especially after the Clinton questioning, the Egypt F16 bill and the gun control "King Obama" thing which won a lot of Republicans over. His tone is normally different when speaking to a libertarian audience.

That's the problem. His tone needs to be consistent regardless of who he's talking to. I mean, I want to win elections, but not at the expense of completely selling out the principles that we believe in.
 
That's the problem. His tone needs to be consistent regardless of who he's talking to. I mean, I want to win elections, but not at the expense of completely selling out the principles that we believe in.

Don't forget Ron Paul did this too when he ran for president.

Ron Paul interviewed by Iran's Press TV:


Republican presidential primary candidate Ron Paul interviewed by Jack Hunter for a campaign video:
 
Last edited:
And he said it's something the government should be considering.

No, he didn't. He said it's something the government *is* considering and that those options *are* on the table. That's not a matter of opinion - that's a fact. No new news there.

As far as what he said *should* be considered: he said he prefers a diplomatic/non-military resolution - and that such a resolution *ought* to be sought.
 
No, he didn't. He said it's something the government *is* considering and that those options *are* on the table. That's not a matter of opinion - that's a fact. No new news there.

As far as what he said *should* be considered: he said he prefers a diplomatic/non-military resolution - and that such a resolution *ought* to be sought.

Rand Paul: "I do agree with those who say that all options should be on the table."
 
Don't forget Ron Paul did this too when he ran for president.

Ron Paul interviewed by Iran's Press TV:


Republican presidential primary candidate Ron Paul interviewed by Jack Hunter for a campaign video:


Ron said what? He certainly never said that pre-emptive war with Iran should be on the table.
 
Traditional Conservative, I always regarded you to be one of the most pro-Rand members on here, as you ridiculed the Rand haters on the DP. Is it not possible you are pandering for +reps and support from the Rand haters with your recent frequent anti-Rand rhetoric?

In the same way, Rand (and Ron) have used rhetoric to gain support from people who may not otherwise support them.
 
Traditional Conservative, I always regarded you to be one of the most pro-Rand members on here, as you ridiculed the Rand haters on the DP. Is it not possible you are pandering for +reps and support from the Rand haters with your recent frequent anti-Rand rhetoric?

In the same way, Rand (and Ron) have used rhetoric to gain support from people who may not otherwise support them.

No, not at all. I've been a big supporter of Rand from the beginning, but I have a huge problem with Rand's rhetoric on foreign policy issues lately. That's all it comes down to. I still like Rand personally.
 
Back
Top