Sen. Rand Paul: Hillary Clinton not "fit to lead the country"

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[Ronin Truth]

Rand, you're correct about Hitlery. So, who is fit? I say no one.

"Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others." -- Edward Abbey

And those that ARE wise enough, don't even want the job.

 

[NOVALibertarian]

[/SIZE][/B]And those that ARE wise enough, don't even want the job.

I wouldn't go that far, although I get your point. For example, I see Rand as "wise" enough to trust him in running the Republic. I see him as someone who seeks the Oval Office because he realizes that sitting on the metaphorical Iron Throne is the only real way to restore some semblance of liberty in most of our lifetimes. He could then use that office to influence the citizens to vote in other like-minded Senators and Representatives, thus delivering a potential Liberty-minded Senate and House for the first time. Even if that doesn't happen, at the very least he'll have control over America's foreign policy, which would be a huge win in itself. I could throw Justin Amash into this category as well if he ever decides to run.

 

[TheTexan]

Even if that doesn't happen, at the very least he'll have control over America's foreign policy

The people in our country generally like our foreign policy. Sure, sure you can find polls that say they don't like it, but what I can tell you what they certainly do not like is a truly non-interventionist foreign policy.

I see the word "blowback" thrown around here all the time but people don't seem to know what it means. "Blowback" means that if Rand Paul by some miracle does get elected President, and starts implementing a truly non-interventionist foreign policy, there will be consequences to that.

Rand can probably get away with making a few small changes. Maybe he can even get away with not doing at all for his term, which would be great, don't get me wrong, but Rand cannot make large changes to foreign policy without pissing off a great many people at home. And any small changes he does make will simply be reversed when the next guy moves into the Oval Office in 2020.

 

[Vanguard101]

I think the most he can get done is
1. Not go to war for 8 years
2. Fix the economy
3. Stop the NSA from spying
4. Cut spending slightly


Good enough for me

 

[NOVALibertarian]

The people in our country generally like our foreign policy. Sure, sure you can find polls that say they don't like it, but what I can tell you what they certainly do not like is a truly non-interventionist foreign policy.

I see the word "blowback" thrown around here all the time but people don't seem to know what it means. "Blowback" means that if Rand Paul by some miracle does get elected President, and starts implementing a truly non-interventionist foreign policy, there will be consequences to that.

Rand can probably get away with making a few small changes. Maybe he can even get away with not doing at all for his term, which would be great, don't get me wrong, but Rand cannot make large changes to foreign policy without pissing off a great many people at home. And any small changes he does make will simply be reversed when the next guy moves into the Oval Office in 2020.

Regardless of who is President, I don't think we'll ever have a true non-interventionist foreign policy, if by that you mean things such as closing all of our bases worldwide. Outside of that, I could see a drastic reduction in our combat in the Middle East (I group things such as drone strikes into this) over the course of Rand's two-terms and a hesitance to get involved in conflicts that aren't in our national interest. The best course of action would be gradually implement more and more non-interventionist policies, and before we know it we'll have a foreign policy of near-non-intervention.

To be honest, most, if not all, Americans have never experienced a non-interventionist foreign policy. Because of this, they're easily fooled into believing the propaganda that it's the same thing as isolationism. By winning, we could take control of this propaganda and reverse it. I think most Americans (outside of the backwards "Team America, fuck yeah!" people) would find that they like what they see. Granted, we'd see a drastic reduction of those emotional Youtube videos of owners reuniting with their kids/pets after a tour of duty, but that's something I'm willing to trade for a rational foreign policy.

Plus, I was encouraged by seeing the American people so reluctant to intervene in Syria last year (especially Millennials). Granted John Kerry did a half-ass job in his Colin Powell impersonation, but I think that the rise of social media websites that didn't exist during the buildup to Afghanistan and Iraq play a role in this. They make it easier for most people to see through the narrative that the federal government and mainstream media perpetuate in the build-up to war. Before Twitter, unless they were a serious student of foreign policy, the only opinions that most people heard during the build-up to wars were those of talking-heads and columnists, most of whom would be in a contest against each other to see who can pound the Drums of War the loudest. In 2014, that's no longer the case.

 

[idiom]

The wave of the sort of people that would get elected with Rand could be enough to do some major things, like break the embargo on Cuba, kill NAFTA and other things...

Maybe even wind down NATO.

 

[LibertyEsq]

I think the most he can get done is
1. Not go to war for 8 years
2. Fix the economy
3. Stop the NSA from spying
4. Cut spending slightly


Good enough for me

+ Supreme Court picks

 

[anaconda]

I'm not sure voters want Rand Paul telling them they can't vote for Hillary based upon this one issue. It may offend their sensibilities about other large issues of policy that they look for in a prospective candidate. It's starting to sound a tad tedious and trite to me. On the other hand, I listen to Rand's speeches more than the average voter, so maybe it sounds fresh to them.

 

[Crashland]

I'm not sure voters want Rand Paul telling them they can't vote for Hillary based upon this one issue. It may offend their sensibilities about other large issues of policy that they look for in a prospective candidate. It's starting to sound a tad tedious and trite to me. On the other hand, I listen to Rand's speeches more than the average voter, so maybe it sounds fresh to them.

Right now though there isn't much else that the public even knows about Hillary to criticize her on. Benghazi is kind of the obvious choice, but that will change come primary/election season.

 

[Vanguard101]

+ Supreme Court picks

If Napolitano was less vocal I could see it happening. The only person I know of for now is Mike Lee. Ken would also be good. Do you guys know of any other good choices?

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

If Napolitano was less vocal I could see it happening. The only person I know of for now is Mike Lee. Ken would also be good. Do you guys know of any other good choices?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Supreme-Court-justice-if-he-becomes-President

 

[Natural Citizen]

I think the most he can get done is
1. Not go to war for 8 years
2. Fix the economy
3. Stop the NSA from spying
4. Cut spending slightly


Good enough for me

2 and 3 are impossible. The scope of what is involved with them are far greater than is advertised in the mainstream. Also 2 and 3 are directly related in an elevated way.

In fact, and depending upon how far down the rabbit hole we want to go, it could be said that intelligence spying would/could be the only thing that actually would keep the economy from tanking during a time when nations around the world remove themselves from the dollar and convert to in house models for finance clearing. As well, International finance clearing among those nations. This is all done digitally in the nformation age. As in space. No longer does reserve currency status belong to the king of the sea ports. And, of course, we should be careful about how we define "the economy" too. It's more than just a political word.

I think solving these things are actually above the influence of the President to be honest.

 

[puppetmaster]

Rand says the sky is blue......yup. tell us something we don't know!

 

[Natural Citizen]

Rand says the sky is blue......yup. tell us something we don't know!

Well. I don't know. If he's actually genuine in wanting to be President then he's your best bet at the moment.

Of course, if he's just running interference for the GOP and will endorse any old establishment nominee for the benefit of the GOP alone then he's going to get pounded on the issues in scope. There is no amount of moderation that will stop that. The www is a very big place.

 

[puppetmaster]

Well. I don't know. If he's actually genuine in wanting to be President then he's your best bet at the moment.

Of course, if he's just running interference for the GOP and will endorse any old establishment nominee for the benefit of the GOP alone then he's going to get pounded on the issues in scope. There is no amount of moderation that will stop that. The www is a very big place.

I was just saying he was stating the obvious. I like rand.

 

[Vanguard101]

2 and 3 are impossible. The scope of what is involved with them are far greater than is advertised in the mainstream. Also 2 and 3 are directly related in an elevated way.

In fact, and depending upon how far down the rabbit hole we want to go, it could be said that intelligence spying would/could be the only thing that actually would keep the economy from tanking during a time when nations around the world remove themselves from the dollar and convert to in house models for finance clearing. As well, International finance clearing among those nations. This is all done digitally in the nformation age. As in space. No longer does reserve currency status belong to the king of the sea ports. And, of course, we should be careful about how we define "the economy" too. It's more than just a political word.

I think solving these things are actually above the influence of the President to be honest.

If you raise the interest rates, cut taxes and deregulate, the economy will be fine...