Rand Paul "neutral" on admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO

[Swordsmyth]

How do you know which way he is voting?
His proposed conditions for not giving Ukraine money were ignored too. Do you have a point?
Show proof he's taking the anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine, interventionist position stance.

Read the article before commenting:

'I have shifted from being against their admittance to NATO to neutral on the question, and will as a consequence vote “present.”'

 

[Occam's Banana]

I've deleted over a dozen posts in this thread for gratuitous insults and name-calling.

Disagree as vehemently as you like, but please remain civil.

If it happens again, I will start issuing infractions.

 

[TheTexan]

I've deleted over a dozen posts in this thread for gratuitous insults and name-calling.

Disagree as vehemently as you like, but please remain civil.

If it happens again, I will start issuing infractions.

It's a shame those posts are lost to history though. Some of tebow's insults were really good.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It's a shame those posts are lost to history though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI

Some of tebow's insults were really good.

You seemed to be giving as good as you got.

 

[tebowlives]

Read the article before commenting:

'I have shifted from being against their admittance to NATO to neutral on the question, and will as a consequence vote “present.”'

Read Rands point before commenting. Even though you have continued to ignore Rands entire point, I will continue to point it out because that is what matters.
Again -
"In the coming days I will propose conditions to the treaty stating that Article 5 does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostilities, and that the U.S. will not bear any costs caused by the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO."

If you want to ignore the fact that he wants Congress to declare war, which they won't, that's on you.

 

[tebowlives]

Well the thing is, Ukraine isn't protecting their borders. It ceased to be their borders when DPR and LPR seceded from Ukraine.

It even further ceased to be their borders when they began shelling innocent people in DPR and LPR for simply being ethnically Russian.

If you want to use "commendable" and "Ukraine" in the same sentence, it comes with an epic $#@!load of nuance, as the vast majority of Ukrainians fighting this war are civilian murdering $#@!bags if not outright nazis. Rand Paul has not demonstrated that he understands this conflict to any significant degree, so when he says "commendable Ukraine" its safe to assume he's lacking the necessary nuance.

For people who understand this conflict, " commendable" is basically the last way you would describe the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians aren't defending their homeland, they are defending their right to continue the systematic genocide of innocent people.

It's not your call on where the borders are. Right now they are part of Ukraine. They can fight their way out but for now they are Ukraine. If they form their own country, maybe they can join NATO.

 

[TheTexan]

It's not your call on where the borders are. Right now they are part of Ukraine. They can fight their way out but for now they are Ukraine. If they form their own country, maybe they can join NATO.

Well, according to your own definition from a deleted post, large parts of eastern "Ukraine" are actually now "Russia" because Russia has secured the territory and Ukraine is not getting it back. All of the LPR oblasts are now in full Russian control. (DPR oblasts are still in progress)

Either way, you're missing the point. Russia isn't the aggressor in this conflict and anyone who does think so is either 1) misinformed, or 2) does not respect the right to self determination.

I'd much rather believe that Rand is misinformed, than does not respect the right to self determination.

 

[TheTexan]

The below is an argument between Rand and Blinken, where it's actually Blinken promoting the "right to self determination" (0:35). Which is just hilariously ironic in so many ways.

Either way, this Rand/Blinken argument is just pathetic. It's a debate with zero of actual substance and proves that neither one knows what they are talking about.



@3:25 the blonde chick gets closest to the truth, when she says "Russia was not actually just concerned about Ukraine joining NATO, Russia just didnt want Ukraine to be a sovereign independent nation at all"

 

[tebowlives]

Well, according to your own definition from a deleted post, large parts of eastern "Ukraine" are actually now "Russia" because Russia has secured the territory and Ukraine is not getting it back. All of the LPR oblasts are now in full Russian control. (DPR oblasts are still in progress)

Don't misrepresent what I've posted while you deflect away from Rands point which is about applying the Constitution.

Either way, you're missing the point. Russia isn't the aggressor in this conflict and anyone who does think so is either 1) misinformed, or 2) does not respect the right to self determination.

You're missing the entire point while deflecting elsewhere. It's about Rands stance on having a discussion based on the Constitution.

I'd much rather believe that Rand is misinformed, than does not respect the right to self determination.

Because you don't care what Rand is emphasizing which is strange since he's obviously making it about the Constitution. That you continue to ignore that and not address it, is telling. Deflect away.

 

[TheTexan]

Don't misrepresent what I've posted while you deflect away from Rands point which is about applying the Constitution.

You're missing the entire point while deflecting elsewhere. It's about Rands stance on having a discussion based on the Constitution.

Because you don't care what Rand is emphasizing which is strange since he's obviously making it about the Constitution. That you continue to ignore that and not address it, is telling. Deflect away.

You're right, I dont care about Rand following the constitution. When it comes to Rand, that's the baseline I've come to expect, and even here, he does not disappoint on that issue.

It's not "unconstitutional" for him to say that Ukraine's fight against Putin is "commendable" nor is it "unconstitutional" for him to say that he "supports Ukraine's cause", but that doesn't mean its not both ignorant and idiotic to say such things.

It is possible to be "constitutional" and ignorant at the same time and unfortunately Rand is proving that. As I've posted elsewhere, this isn't intended to be a dig on Rand, as nearly every other libertarian is as ignorant as he is on this issue.

 

[TheTexan]

So many people on this forum were inspired when Ron dropped the truth bomb on the debate stage, "They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because we've been bombing and killing them"

If someone came out and told the truth on Ukraine it could very well inspire others in a similar way. It's a missed opportunity.

 

[tebowlives]

You're right, I dont care about Rand following the constitution. When it comes to Rand, that's the baseline I've come to expect, and even here, he does not disappoint on that issue.

Obviously you don't care to focus on the actual issue and what's important.

It's not "unconstitutional" for him to say that Ukraine's fight against Putin is "commendable" nor is it "unconstitutional" for him to say that he "supports Ukraine's cause", but that doesn't mean its not both ignorant and idiotic to say such things.

Because it's not ignorant and idiotic. That's what you've incorrectly made it out to be.

It is possible to be "constitutional" and ignorant at the same time and unfortunately Rand is proving that. As I've posted elsewhere, this isn't intended to be a dig on Rand, as nearly every other libertarian is as ignorant as he is on this issue.

No Rand isn't the ignorant one here. And again that's just you on your high horse completely missing the point and what's important. But you keep repeating yourself over and over and over again while missing the point if it makes you feel better.

 

[TheTexan]

Obviously you don't care to focus on the actual issue and what's important.

You're the arbiter of what is and isnt important? I wasn't aware. Please provide a list of talking points I am allowed to discuss so I can be sure to discuss only things that you think are important.

Because it's not ignorant and idiotic. That's what you've incorrectly made it out to be.

Nah, Rand is way off base on this. Just because you're too ignorant to notice his ignorance, does not make either of you, not ignorant.

No Rand isn't the ignorant one here. And again that's just you on your high horse completely missing the point and what's important. But you keep repeating yourself over and over and over again while missing the point if it makes you feel better.

Dude even fucking Blinken smoked Rand on this topic when Rand tried to debate him on this. Fucking Blinken of all people.

When you and Rand both share the same opinion as George Soros maybe, just maybe you could be wrong on this.

You can either continue to proclaim how "not ignorant" you are all day long,
OR, you can educate yourself on this,
OR, you can explain to me how your position is not ignorant by demonstrating that you have even the remote clue of what the fuck is going on by saying something of substance.

If you want resources to help educate yourself I am happy to provide, but I get the distinct sense that you just want to remain ignorant because that's just who you are. I think you take pride in being ignorant

 

[tebowlives]

You're the arbiter of what is and isnt important? I wasn't aware. Please provide a list of talking points I am allowed to discuss so I can be sure to discuss only things that you think are important.

Already been answered. You continue to ignore it and deflect.

Nah, Rand is way off base on this. Just because you're too ignorant to notice his ignorance, does not make either of you, not ignorant.

You're ignorant on what's important.

Dude even $#@!ing Blinken smoked Rand on this topic when Rand tried to debate him on this. $#@!ing Blinken of all people.

Dude you keep repeating yourself and deflecting.

When you and Rand both share the same opinion as George Soros maybe, just maybe you could be wrong on this.

When you make it about the speaker, you've lost. It's about the Constitution.

You can either continue to proclaim how "not ignorant" you are all day long,
OR, you can educate yourself on this,
OR, you can explain to me how your position is not ignorant by demonstrating that you have even the remote clue of what the $#@! is going on by saying something of substance.

You can be ignorant on what's important. You can be ignorant in a car, you can be ignorant in a bar...

If you want resources to help educate yourself I am happy to provide, but I get the distinct sense that you just want to remain ignorant because that's just who you are. I think you take pride in being ignorant

Your deflection on what Rand is doing and what's important is laughable. I know you take pride in trying to be right instead of caring about the truth.

"oh but ignorant, umm and ignorant, and ahhhhh ignorant. hey look at me, I'm the one who is all knowing and you're the one who is ignorant because I said you are. oh and ignorant."
lol I didn't realize I got under your skin that much.

Your entire catty post once again ignores Rands point about making it Constitutional. If you don't want to discuss that, then why continue? - rhetorical

 

[Swordsmyth]

Read Rands point before commenting. Even though you have continued to ignore Rands entire point, I will continue to point it out because that is what matters.
Again -
"In the coming days I will propose conditions to the treaty stating that Article 5 does not supersede the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war before engaging in hostilities, and that the U.S. will not bear any costs caused by the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO."

If you want to ignore the fact that he wants Congress to declare war, which they won't, that's on you.

He's going to let them ignore his proposals and do whatever they want without even a symbolic vote against.
He is also feeding their pro-war, pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia agenda with his words.
If we get into WWIII and get nuked it will be partly his fault.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Rand is stepping out of the way of interventionism and feeding the interventionist agenda.
Whether or not Russia is wrong doesn't really matter to us, we should do nothing about it and that includes allowing more members into NATO to then have a claim on us to be dragged into their wars.

P.S. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt and criminal countries in the world and has participated in crimes against the American people, I hope Russia wins.

 

[tebowlives]

He's going to let them ignore his proposals and do whatever they want without even a symbolic vote against.
He is also feeding their pro-war, pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia agenda with his words.
If we get into WWIII and get nuked it will be partly his fault.

lol Stop with the nonsense. Even though Rand is the one who wont fund them, he'll be partly to blame? Really? you're seeing too much into this imo.

 

[tebowlives]

Rand is stepping out of the way of interventionism and feeding the interventionist agenda.
Whether or not Russia is wrong doesn't really matter to us, we should do nothing about it and that includes allowing more members into NATO to then have a claim on us to be dragged into their wars.

No he's not stepping out of the way. He's making it about the Constitution like he should. That is where he wants the conversation to go. And yes we should do nothing about it.

P.S. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt and criminal countries in the world and has participated in crimes against the American people, I hope Russia wins.

Agree 100%

 

[TheTexan]

Already been answered. You continue to ignore it and deflect.


You're ignorant on what's important.


Dude you keep repeating yourself and deflecting.

When you make it about the speaker, you've lost. It's about the Constitution.

You can be ignorant on what's important. You can be ignorant in a car, you can be ignorant in a bar...

Your deflection on what Rand is doing and what's important is laughable. I know you take pride in trying to be right instead of caring about the truth.

"oh but ignorant, umm and ignorant, and ahhhhh ignorant. hey look at me, I'm the one who is all knowing and you're the one who is ignorant because I said you are. oh and ignorant."
lol I didn't realize I got under your skin that much.

Your entire catty post once again ignores Rands point about making it Constitutional. If you don't want to discuss that, then why continue? - rhetorical

I'm done arguing with you as I'd get more value arguing with a brick wall, but you should just know this : Rand has "room for improvement" on this issue.

 

[tebowlives]

I'm done arguing with you

All you did was repeat yourself. oh but ignorant

as I'd get more value arguing with a brick wall,

A brick wall has more substance than you and isn't ignorant

but you should just know this : Rand has "room for improvement" on this issue.

Because making it about the Constitution is bad? Understood. Don't get hurt falling off that high horse. But you should just know one thing, that horse is ignorant.