Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades

[devil21]

You guys really need to stop comparing Ron to Rand. Ron is borderline supremely overrated.


Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

Calling Ron "supremely overrated" and "racist" should be an automatic ban!

 

[jmdrake]

Really? Because unlike Ron Paul, Barbara Lee had it right from the beginning. And guess what, she managed to win re-election after her "crazy" lone vote against AUMF.

Good for her! But she wasn't having to run in Ron's district.

 

[Crashland]

Those social conservatives who think Israel is "God's chosen nation" and practically think the US is as well cannot be helped. They will never join with us. We have to win without them.

Those who more support Israel for pragmatic reasons (ie. "only democracy in the Middle East" and so forth) should know the bad things that Israel is doing. No, I'm not denying that Israel is a better place to live than Iran. But they aren't exactly best buddies with Christians, and they have done wrong things in the Palestinian conflict as well.

I agree that Israeli government shouldn't be singled out in the sense that I want to cut off foreign aid for everybody, not just Israel. But our alliance with Israel is hurting our relations with the rest of the Middle East, and it is frankly bad for the United States. And Israel isn't exactly a saint of a nation either. So, I don't really see anything wrong with anti-Israel rhetoric as long as its not ridiculous and over the top. No other nation gets as much American help in that region as Israel does.

I don't think we can win without them. It is a make-or-break issue for a lot of voters and most of those voters are Republicans. There's no way that Rand can afford to say anything even remotely anti-Israel, at least not before the primary is over.

 

[jjdoyle]

I don't think we can win without them. It is a make-or-break issue for a lot of voters and most of those voters are Republicans. There's no way that Rand can afford to say anything even remotely anti-Israel, at least not before the primary is over.

The Value Voters Summit straw poll should be clear evidence, I think, that these voters will not vote for Rand, first, second, or third. There needs to be a path to the GOP nomination without them, and without the southern states.

Don't count on Iowa or South Carolina if Mike Huckabee is running, or Florida is another candidate is. New Hampshire should be a good first bet, but I'm not sure where it goes after that. Maine? Maybe Nevada? I would think Maine, since Ron almost beat Romney in Maine without running a single attack ad against him in the state.

But, when we look at past Republican nominees, Iowa, New Hampshire, and/or South Carolina are important first wins, but Florida usually seals it up after those. If Jeb Bush is running, I don't see how Florida is even in play during the primary.

And being against all foreign aid, has nothing to do with being anti-Israel, it has to do with being pro-American, and being a constitutional fiscal conservative.

Which Representative recently read the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that are classified, and said he had to stop and rethink what history had told him? The same Representative that was the single lone "Nay" vote, on a recent bill for more funding to Israel.

Just because you are voting against foreign funding, doesn't mean being anti. It might be the exact opposite actually. Being a pro-Constitution, fiscal, conservative.

It's why I said Thomas Massie should run for President in 2016. I know that he at the very least has read the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 Commission Report, and that he didn't vote for more funding to a country that potentially makes me and my family less safe.

 

[Matt Collins]

And Rand's approach will be victorious?

If the election were held tomorrow, Rand would win.

 

[Matt Collins]

The Value Voters Summit straw poll should be clear evidence, I think, that these voters will not vote for Rand, first, second, or third.

You don't know what you're talking about. Straw polls are meaningless because it is all about mobilization and turn out; those events are almost never organic and absolutely never a predictor of future electoral results.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

In 18 months, say by March 2016, we will see if Rand's pragmatic finesse approach works any better, or not. If it's NOT, the movement will have to make a choice going forward about taking the beat around the bush approach, or go back to supporting going with open principle, as per Ron.

If Rand's approach doesn't work, there won't be a movement to go back to, so changing strategy won't be an issue.

 

[jjdoyle]

You don't know what you're talking about. Straw polls are meaningless because it is all about mobilization and turn out; those events are almost never organic and absolutely never a predictor of future electoral results.

Straw polls are meaningless if you lose them. But great if you win them. Rand said it himself:


The Values Voters Summit straw poll showed that despite Rand Paul and Rick Santorum both giving speeches at it, Rick Santorum still having campaign debt and little/no organization was able to get more votes than Rand. The guy you just claimed would win if the election were held tomorrow.

 

[Slutter McGee]

KCChiefs, I have to apologize to you for what I said about you last night. Even though you're sometimes not exactly civil to me, as a Christian I'm commanded to love those I don't get along with very well. So I apologize for the personal attacks and will delete my comments.

Don't apologize. Insult these assholes. Being turned off by libertarians is a wake up call to these pricks....perhaps molesting 8 year old girls will finally be a bad thing for these fucktards.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Don't apologize. Insult these assholes. Being turned off by libertarians is a wake up call to these pricks....perhaps molesting 8 year old girls will finally be a bad thing for these fucktards.

When has anyone said it wasn't? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

 

[Crashland]

I'm starting to wonder if Rand's moderate foreign policy might actually be a political death sentence. Rand is the one taking the most sensible position, yet he is getting lambasted hard from both extremes. Being moderate doesn't help if there actually aren't any moderates.

 

[devil21]

I'm starting to wonder if Rand's moderate foreign policy might actually be a political death sentence. Rand is the one taking the most sensible position, yet he is getting lambasted hard from both extremes. Being moderate doesn't help if there actually aren't any moderates.

Most of the 'lambasting' you're reading is posted by AIPAC trolls, trying to confuse the issue and give an impression that doesn't actually exist outside of their little propaganda-filled world. If Rand is being attacked by both extremes then it's proof he's doing something right. Don't forget that foreign policy hawks control both the left and the right and have worked hard to co-opt ostensibly 'libertarian' groups to give the impression that Rand can't win.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

If Rand's approach doesn't work, there won't be a movement to go back to, so changing strategy won't be an issue.

Oh yes it will, as it will result in major lessons learned. A defeat of Rand circa march 2016 (e.g., with him failing to win, or being cheated out of winning any primaries, just as before with Ron) would signal that either Paul has to run third party to change the dynamic. It would specifically show Rand's pragmatic approach made no difference in swaying the GOP primary system as currently set up by the establishment. Not to mention providing a 'strike three, RIP' to trusting the Paul Inc machine to successfully manage a liberty presidential candidacy---it will have shown, after three losses, that it can't.

It would show, for the third time, that Ron and Rand's attempt to battle the all-stops-out interventionists without ever challenging the "we're under threat" framework that gives current interventionism its credibility and momentum, was a fundamental error. Evading discussing the role of 9-11 and other false flags or covert ops (in manufacturing the new wars) will have to be conceded to have been a key reason why both Pauls were unable to break the rank and file primary voters' mindset on foreign policy.

If we are on our way to defeat for the third time in March '16, either a national victory by the liberty movement will have been proven to be not possible under the current US political system, or that the Pauls being the unquestioned leaders of it since '07 has been the problem. A post-Paul liberty candidacy in 2020 with a different leader (Napolitano? Amash? etc), that avoids the above mistakes, may then be the way to proceed going forward.

 

[Brett85]

Don't apologize. Insult these assholes. Being turned off by libertarians is a wake up call to these pricks....perhaps molesting 8 year old girls will finally be a bad thing for these fucktards.

Lol.

 

[Brett85]

I'm starting to wonder if Rand's moderate foreign policy might actually be a political death sentence. Rand is the one taking the most sensible position, yet he is getting lambasted hard from both extremes. Being moderate doesn't help if there actually aren't any moderates.

Most Americans are in the middle on foreign policy issues and not on either extreme. Rand's foreign policy will resonate with the vast majority of the American people. The people on both extremes who attack him only speak for a very small number of people.

 

[Matt Collins]

Oh yes it will, as it will result in major lessons learned. A defeat of Rand circa march 2016 (e.g., with him failing to win, or being cheated out of winning any primaries, just as before with Ron) would signal that either Paul has to run third party to change the dynamic.

No, not at all. It simply means we keep trying until successful because we get closer with each try. A third party presidential route is a non-starter. Not to mention that it is impossible to win the Presidency as a 3rd party candidate.

It would specifically show Rand's pragmatic approach made no difference in swaying the GOP primary system as currently set up by the establishment. Not to mention providing a 'strike three, RIP' to trusting the Paul Inc machine to successfully manage a liberty presidential candidacy---it will have shown, after three losses, that it can't.

It would show, for the third time, that Ron and Rand's attempt to battle the all-stops-out interventionists without ever challenging the "we're under threat" framework that gives current interventionism its credibility and momentum, was a fundamental error. Evading discussing the role of 9-11 and other false flags or covert ops (in manufacturing the new wars) will have to be conceded to have been a key reason why both Pauls were unable to break the rank and file primary voters' mindset on foreign policy.

If we are on our way to defeat for the third time in March '16, either a national victory by the liberty movement will have been proven to be not possible under the current US political system, or that the Pauls being the unquestioned leaders of it since '07 has been the problem. A post-Paul liberty candidacy in 2020 with a different leader (Napolitano? Amash? etc), that avoids the above mistakes, may then be the way to proceed going forward.

You have no idea what you are talking about, are highly ignorant of the process, and your conspiracy talk is not welcome here.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

That post pretty much flew over your head huh? Barbara Lee was the ONLY person who voted against the AUMF. Do you know what that is? That is the reason the video was shown. You, showing your inability to understand the post somehow decided to turn that post into a racist comment. Way to show your ignorance.

Vanguard101 enjoys shouting about "racism" without having any idea what he's talking about.

This was not the first time: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist
(Against which, see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ses-a-racist&p=5567096&viewfull=1#post5567096)

I doubt it will be the last ...

 

[Carlybee]

Okay. So what happens when the PTB ramp up the fear factor and we start conveniently having more terror attacks etc.? Boobus isn't exactly comprised of free thinkers.

 

[jtstellar]

You get peace by loving peace, not by hating war.

 

[devil21]

You guys don't know what non-interventionism means. Sigh.

You tell us what it means then, young padawan. I'd like to read your thoughts on it, seeing how old and wise you are.