r3volution 3.0
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 18,553
Surprisingly good article from The Daily Beast, criticizing GOPers for being so susceptible to fear-mongering and nationalist propaganda.
My only objection, I suppose, would be to their characterization of Rand's campaign as "totally fucked" in light of the GOP's hawkish turn.
...it's only slightly fucked at this point.
Continue Reading
My only objection, I suppose, would be to their characterization of Rand's campaign as "totally fucked" in light of the GOP's hawkish turn.
...it's only slightly fucked at this point.
In 2013, the case for Rand Paul’s presidential bid went something like this: His father, Ron, was able to create a grassroots movement by appealing to people—many of them young—who thought the government was too involved in their lives and too eager to wage war at the expense of American futures and dollars. But Ron Paul, folksy little thing that he was, was the wrong guy to deliver the message. Rand Paul, younger and slicker, could carry on his dad’s legacy while also drawing in people who might have backed away slowly if Ron tried to talk to them about the Gold Standard.
It was the perfect time, it seemed, for an antiwar message to stick. Americans whose whole lives had been spent with the country at war would be voting in 2016, and polls indicated that when Ron and Rand voiced skepticism about military intervention, they were speaking for a majority. A New York Times/CBS News poll from June 2013 found that six in 10 people did not want the U.S. to take a lead role in solving conflicts in the Middle East.
But two years later, the world has changed. And what Paul is offering voters provides little comfort to Americans who are scared.
Continue Reading