[Video] Rand Paul foreign policy speech on senate floor 9/18/14

[Christian Liberty]

But it's not the case that Rand just always goes with majority opinion because he's a "politician." The most recent poll shows that Republican voters in particular believe that there's too much of an emphasis on defending civil liberties on not enough of an emphasis on fighting terrorism, so right now they strongly support the Patriot Act, the NSA program, and other similar programs. Is Rand going to come out in favor of those surveillance state policies simply because those policies are popular with Republican voters at the moment? Of course not. He'll stand strong on those issues just like he's stood strong against surveillance state policies since he's been a Senator. So why do people think that Rand is in favor of military strikes against ISIS simply because it's popular with Republican voters when he's repeatedly taken unpopular positions on other issues? If Rand were strongly opposed to military strikes against ISIS at his core, he would oppose them.

Well, if Rand were purely trying to get elected and not caring about principle at all, you're right. He'd take the majority opinion on every single issue. But its possible that Rand is willing to take an unpopular position but not an extraordinarily unpopular position, because the latter would harm him far more politically, and by not doing it he can perhaps make positive inroads on the areas where he's only somewhat unpopular. Plus, he may be worrying about the general election and the primary simultaneously.

That said, its possible that Rand really is dumb enough to think that this would be a good idea. That would suck.

 

[Brett85]

That said, its possible that Rand really is dumb enough to think that this would be a good idea. That would suck.

There are no good options at this point because of failed foreign policy decisions made by our government in the past, so it's likely that Rand just views the air strikes as the least worst option, not necessarily because it's a "good idea" or something that he really wants to do.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There are no good options at this point because of failed foreign policy decisions made by our government in the past, so it's likely that Rand just views the air strikes as the least worst option, not necessarily because it's a "good idea" or something that he really wants to do.

Somewhat nitpicky, but fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that Rand is glee at the prospect of getting to bomb people (I'll save that type of rhetoric for McCain or Graham). But, if he actually thinks this is a better option than not intervening, I would find that disappointing.

 

[devil21]

Do you have some link or some kind of evidence that Rand made a statement that his foreign policy is exactly the same as Ron's down to the last detail?

Irrelevant. I don't rely solely on links to other people's thoughts to form my own views since I am capable of thinking for myself and working through issues to find the most logical conclusion. Want to know my #1 piece of evidence? Rand's genetics.

There are no good options at this point because of failed foreign policy decisions made by our government in the past, so it's likely that Rand just views the air strikes as the least worst option, not necessarily because it's a "good idea" or something that he really wants to do.

Speaking of links, can you provide a link to where Rand has voted to bomb anyone at all? Until he votes for something like that, he's a typical politician saying what people want to hear. Fortunately, politician doublespeak goes both ways. We're just not used to anyone doing it for positive reasons....

 

[Brett85]

Speaking of links, can you provide a link to where Rand has voted to bomb anyone at all? Until he votes for something like that, he's a typical politician saying what people want to hear. Fortunately, politician doublespeak goes both ways. We're just not used to anyone doing it for positive reasons....

It will just give more ammunition for people to label him a flip flopper if he says that he supports air strikes against ISIS but then votes against it. What would be the point of that? He's said that he'll vote for the authorization as long as it contains language that the authorization expires after a couple years or so. I take him at his word.

 

[devil21]

It will just give more ammunition for people to label him a flip flopper if he says that he supports air strikes against ISIS but then votes against it. What would be the point of that? He's said that he'll vote for the authorization as long as it contains language that the authorization expires after a couple years or so. I take him at his word.

Oh noez! A flip flopper? That sure has sunk every politician's chances at higher office in the past. It's the kiss of death I tell you!

If you don't understand the point by now then perhaps you should give up on politics and find something else to do that is more your speed.

 

[Brett85]

Oh noez! A flip flopper? That sure has sunk every politician's chances at higher office in the past. It's the kiss of death I tell you!

If you don't understand the point by now then perhaps you should give up on politics and find something else to do that is more your speed.

If you think that Rand is going to vote against authorizing the air strikes when he's repeatedly said that he'll vote for them, I think you're the one who needs to give up on politics.

 

[devil21]

If you think that Rand is going to vote against authorizing the air strikes when he's repeatedly said that he'll vote for them, I think you're the one who needs to give up on politics.

We'll see if and when that time comes.

 

[specsaregood]

It will just give more ammunition for people to label him a flip flopper if he says that he supports air strikes against ISIS but then votes against it. What would be the point of that? He's said that he'll vote for the authorization as long as it contains language that the authorization expires after a couple years or so. I take him at his word.

He'll vote for them IF it contains that condition. And doesn't even bring up the possibility of all kinds of other stuff stuck into such a bill that would cause him to vote against them.

If you think that Rand is going to vote against authorizing the air strikes when he's repeatedly said that he'll vote for them, I think you're the one who needs to give up on politics.

He'll vote against them if they come up just because the warmongers won't be able to keep themselves from absolutely polluting such a bill with so much crap that he won't be able to vote for it.

On a bill such as that, that they know will pass every single piggy will be up at the trough sticking their nose in and adding every single little line item their biggest donors have been asking for but they havent' had an opportunity to sneak in. If you don't think that will happen, perhaps you need to give up on politics.

 

[Brett85]

He'll vote for them IF it contains that condition. And doesn't even bring up the possibility of all kinds of other stuff stuck into such a bill that would cause him to vote against them.


He'll vote against them if they come up just because the warmongers won't be able to keep themselves from absolutely polluting such a bill with so much crap that he won't be able to vote for it.

On a bill such as that, that they know will pass every single piggy will be up at the trough sticking their nose in and adding every single little line item their biggest donors have been asking for but they havent' had an opportunity to sneak in. If you don't think that will happen, perhaps you need to give up on politics.

I agree with what you're saying. I think he'll vote against an authorization that has a whole bunch of other bad stuff included in it. But I just don't agree with Devil21 that Rand has some type of elaborate plan in his mind and has no intention of voting in favor of any authorization.

 

[Brett85]

Although I don't necessarily agree that the authorization will be loaded with all kinds of bad things. It might be, but it might not be. I think the authorization that was proposed by Senator Nelson was pretty simple and straightforward and included a clause that the authorization would expire in a couple of years. I think Rand has made it clear that he'll vote for an authorization like that.

 

[specsaregood]

Although I don't necessarily agree that the authorization will be loaded with all kinds of bad things. It might be, but it might not be. I think the authorization that was proposed by Senator Nelson was pretty simple and straightforward and included a clause that the authorization would expire in a couple of years. I think Rand has made it clear that he'll vote for an authorization like that.

Yes, I think he would vote for a straightforward bill such as that. But at the same time I think he knows that will never come to the floor by itself for final vote. Especially an opportunity like this, the dem's will want to add something toxic to it, just because the know the republicans want to vote for it.

 

[Brett85]

Yes, I think he would vote for a straightforward bill such as that. But at the same time I think he knows that will never come to the floor by itself for final vote. Especially an opportunity like this, the dem's will want to add something toxic to it, just because the know the republicans want to vote for it.

I guess we'll see what happens. There may not ever even be a vote on it.