Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?
- Thread starter Origanalist
- Start date
If Trump is so easily swayed, why is he not agitating for war with Russia?
harikaried
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,807
What?! Over 6 minutes of Rand Paul on CNN? That's more time than he got in some of the presidential debates...
juleswin
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 14,245
What?! Over 6 minutes of Rand Paul on CNN? That's more time than he got in some of the presidential debates...
Oh yea, we would start seeing Ron and Rand start making regular appearances on CNN and MSNBC. They build Trump up so now is the time to tear him down so criticisms from the right would be perfect.
I just hope they don't bite too much into it at least not without calling them out first.
The Gold Standard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,188
Nope. Rudy will be.
Perhaps. It's better than Bolton. Maybe.
The Gold Standard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,188
Who wants war with Russia? None of them. Hillary tried to use them to distract Boobus from her own problems, but none of them want to lose their fortunes in a nuclear war.
The Gold Standard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,188
No, it's really not. It's no different.
Notice I said, "maybe". lol
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Interesting that Rand is pushing Corker for SOS....
1- Corker is one of the biggest opponents against an Audit of the Fed. Getting him gone will get the Senate 1 vote closer to passing a full audit.
2- Corker has a new nickname in Tennessee: "Corrupt Corker". He has had a lot of insider trading and suspicious investments and undisclosed income. It's kind of like the Clinton Foundation. If he gets picked it will be problematic because he has a lot of baggage.
1- Corker is one of the biggest opponents against an Audit of the Fed. Getting him gone will get the Senate 1 vote closer to passing a full audit.
2- Corker has a new nickname in Tennessee: "Corrupt Corker". He has had a lot of insider trading and suspicious investments and undisclosed income. It's kind of like the Clinton Foundation. If he gets picked it will be problematic because he has a lot of baggage.
Origanalist
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,054
Anyone on twitter, help get the ball rolling;
Brian4 Liberty has stuff going on also, there is a thread here about it.
Krugminator2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,568
This is the problem with having a guy who knows nothing about policy or politics.
Trump constantly rips people like Krauthammer and Kristol for supporting Iraq, then he is okay with Rudy and Bolton because both of them kissed his butt. I don't think Trump even knows what he is doing with these picks. He put Christie and now Pence in charge of these appointments and not surprisingly he is getting Bush era retreads.
Corker or Sessions would be an improvement but you could do a lot better.
Trump constantly rips people like Krauthammer and Kristol for supporting Iraq, then he is okay with Rudy and Bolton because both of them kissed his butt. I don't think Trump even knows what he is doing with these picks. He put Christie and now Pence in charge of these appointments and not surprisingly he is getting Bush era retreads.
Corker or Sessions would be an improvement but you could do a lot better.
I mentioned this as one of my big fears(not Bolton in particular, but neocon influence), after Trump's foreign policy speach earlier in the year. I think people have also ignored what a horrible neocon Pence is. Pence still thinks the only problem with Iraq is that we didn't stay long enough! Trump should pick Pat Buchanan as Secretary of State. Buchanan has an impressive knowledge of American, military and foreign policy history, plus has rightfully opposed just about every post-Cold War intervention and has been vindicated time again whether it was the Gulf when he ran against Bush Sr., Kosovo, Iraq, or NATO Expansion. It'd be difficult to read A Republic, Not an Empire and not come away with a deep appreciation for Buchanan's knowledge. Plus, Buchanan was a consistent Trump supporter. Sadly, Trump won't consider Buchanan.
AuH20
Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,739
Buchanan would never get through the Senate Approval Process. They would shame him with out of context book quotes.
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
My expertise in assessing many of these people is lacking.
My general position is this: if Trump is serious about the things his broader expressed goal of "draining the swamp" would entail, then it is my opinion that he need to make a clean break from the status quo. That means nearly nobody from administrations past, and the few exceptions there I would view as eminently dangerous.
I can certainly understand the desire for appointing experienced people, but far more important is trustworthiness, an absence of being beholden to inimical forces, a "right" attitude, the knowledge of what liberty really means, and the guts to accept the costs of liberty even when it means significant short-term loss along various lines certain to make some people go berserk. Smart but inexperienced people can learn rapidly, and if we lose a few battles in the interest of the broader and longer view that wins the war, I am all for it.
Another point of creativity: who says that those with the experience have to hold the cabinet positions? Why could they not be retained as advisors. Imagine Thomas Massie as SOS (work with me here). To my knowledge, he holds all the requisite qualities listed. Clearly he has zero experience, but he is sharp as a razor and would undoubtedly pick up the nature of the game rapidly. Why not let men like Bolton and Gingrich who have the experience serve as advisors at Thomas' pleasure? That way, if they try to screw him, he can dismiss them without cause. A man we know to be knowledgeable in the principles of liberty and of the required ethical and moral fiber would have the final say on the matters of his office, but would have at his disposal the admittedly superior resources of those who've been in the trenches prior.
This arrangement gives the better of both worlds. The man of the right timbre makes the decisions aided by men of experience, which would best preclude the sorts of hanky panky of which so many Americans are so justifiably afeared. Once again, a return to the consistent and reliably disciplined avoidance of even the appearance of impropriety. It is not perfect, but it is perhaps penultimate in a world of imperfect men.
Breaking with the past should perhaps be THE central pillar of a Trump administration's "platform". This man has an opportunity none of us will ever see again in our great grandchildren's lifetimes. He could do endless good toward the restoration of proper Constitutional governance without anyone having to fire a single shot. My fear is that this opportunity will be squandered miserably out of nothing more than a case of tunnel vision, if we can be generous enough to assume Trump's love of this land, its people, and his good intentions for better days for all.
The talk I have heard of placing people from Goldman Sachs does things to my head for which my descriptive powers fail me totally.
I have heard that Bannon is a sharp guy, but is he sharp enough to get Trump onto a more creative track regarding his cabinet strategy? I wish I could be given a five minute talk with Trump on this very topic on the slimmest hope he might listen.
For anyone raising the objection to such an arrangement citing the egos of men like Bolton - that they would take it as a personal affront to be a mere advisor - I refer you back to the strategy of avoiding so much as even the appearances of impropriety. Advising them of this major strategic element, their reactions would tell us everything we would need to know in terms of how well they would serve such posts. It renders candidates self-proving to some extent.
My general position is this: if Trump is serious about the things his broader expressed goal of "draining the swamp" would entail, then it is my opinion that he need to make a clean break from the status quo. That means nearly nobody from administrations past, and the few exceptions there I would view as eminently dangerous.
I can certainly understand the desire for appointing experienced people, but far more important is trustworthiness, an absence of being beholden to inimical forces, a "right" attitude, the knowledge of what liberty really means, and the guts to accept the costs of liberty even when it means significant short-term loss along various lines certain to make some people go berserk. Smart but inexperienced people can learn rapidly, and if we lose a few battles in the interest of the broader and longer view that wins the war, I am all for it.
Another point of creativity: who says that those with the experience have to hold the cabinet positions? Why could they not be retained as advisors. Imagine Thomas Massie as SOS (work with me here). To my knowledge, he holds all the requisite qualities listed. Clearly he has zero experience, but he is sharp as a razor and would undoubtedly pick up the nature of the game rapidly. Why not let men like Bolton and Gingrich who have the experience serve as advisors at Thomas' pleasure? That way, if they try to screw him, he can dismiss them without cause. A man we know to be knowledgeable in the principles of liberty and of the required ethical and moral fiber would have the final say on the matters of his office, but would have at his disposal the admittedly superior resources of those who've been in the trenches prior.
This arrangement gives the better of both worlds. The man of the right timbre makes the decisions aided by men of experience, which would best preclude the sorts of hanky panky of which so many Americans are so justifiably afeared. Once again, a return to the consistent and reliably disciplined avoidance of even the appearance of impropriety. It is not perfect, but it is perhaps penultimate in a world of imperfect men.
Breaking with the past should perhaps be THE central pillar of a Trump administration's "platform". This man has an opportunity none of us will ever see again in our great grandchildren's lifetimes. He could do endless good toward the restoration of proper Constitutional governance without anyone having to fire a single shot. My fear is that this opportunity will be squandered miserably out of nothing more than a case of tunnel vision, if we can be generous enough to assume Trump's love of this land, its people, and his good intentions for better days for all.
The talk I have heard of placing people from Goldman Sachs does things to my head for which my descriptive powers fail me totally.
I have heard that Bannon is a sharp guy, but is he sharp enough to get Trump onto a more creative track regarding his cabinet strategy? I wish I could be given a five minute talk with Trump on this very topic on the slimmest hope he might listen.
For anyone raising the objection to such an arrangement citing the egos of men like Bolton - that they would take it as a personal affront to be a mere advisor - I refer you back to the strategy of avoiding so much as even the appearances of impropriety. Advising them of this major strategic element, their reactions would tell us everything we would need to know in terms of how well they would serve such posts. It renders candidates self-proving to some extent.
seapilot
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,096
Only if someone pisses him off. Oh crap.
On another note, he has proved to be a master of trolling people, nothing would freak out dems more than a neocon stacked administration again. Really though not much different than Hillary would have had.
Similar threads
