Topic: GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist - page 83. (Read 205816 times)

At last week's Sun Valley conference, Paul had one-on-one meetings with Thiel and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The former isn't surprising. (Thiel basically bankrolled the elder Paul's 2012 presidential campaign.) But Zuckerberg is an unlikely Paul ally. He's clearly not a down-the-line Democrat — he held a fund-raiser for Chris Christie, and his meandering political organization, FWD.us, has backed conservative politicians — and, when asked about his affiliation, he has refused to identify with either major party, saying only, "I'm pro-knowledge economy." But he hasn't come out as a tea-party conservative, or anything like one.

Sean Parker, another Facebook-affiliated billionaire and politically active tech investor, has also met privately with Paul. Parker is undergoing his own political rebirth, shifting from backing mostly progressive causes and politicians to writing checks to centrist conservatives as well. Last quarter, he gave more than half a million dollars to GOP groups and candidates, making the case that ideology trumps party affiliation when it comes to making progress on issues like immigration and campaign-finance reform.

It's friends like Parker and Zuckerberg who explain why Paul now routinely receives what Fortune called a "hero's welcome" when he comes to Silicon Valley. Next weekend, Paul will get to make his case yet again as the keynote speaker at Reboot, a San Francisco conference put on by a group called Lincoln Labs, which self-defines as "techies and politicos who believe in promoting liberty with technology." He'll likely say a version of what he's said before: that Silicon Valley's innovative potential can be best unlocked in an environment with minimal government intrusion in the forms of surveillance, corporate taxes, and regulation. “I see almost unlimited potential for us in Silicon Valley,” Paul has said, with "us" meaning libertarians.

that is what i have been saying.. except obama didn't enter iraq on false pretenses (so that he and dick could help their friends). i consider that worse, especially after increasing spending and cutting taxes.

i know the righties here like to complain about the left and its spending, but republicans spend just as much as democrats.. just on different things. they want to put all the money into imperialism/military.

Is there a single thing on that list that W Bush didn't do? (and his dad too)
Obama has simply continued most of what was already in place. Hopefully someone like Rand Paul can bring real changes (even if he is a long-shot)

Is there a single thing on that list that W Bush didn't do? (and his dad too)
Obama has simply continued most of what was already in place. Hopefully someone like Rand Paul can bring real changes (even if he is a long-shot)

...
but there is a coherent world view (at least with obama) - be a slave to the corporations, infringe on privacy rights, spend/mettle overseas to gain resources, and then spend government money to help out contractors.

Now, what is missing, between McCain's bouncing around like a rubber military ball, and Rand Paul's "isolationism" (it's not really isolationism) is a proper doctrine, based on a coherent world view.

We don't have one from the current administration, and we don't have a Republican one to turn to.

Now, what is missing, between McCain's bouncing around like a rubber military ball, and Rand Paul's "isolationism" (it's not really isolationism) is a proper doctrine, based on a coherent world view.

We don't have one from the current administration, and we don't have a Republican one to turn to.

Read more...http://thehill.com/policy/defense/212078-mccain-paul-a-member-of-fortress-america-wing-of-gop

this is how i feel. but not just that.. being electable is one thing, and fundraising is another. if you're going to do what rand talks about, then he's going to have a lot of monied people against him.. either that, or he receives money from them and the same shit happens as with every president.

If you had any doubts about how seriously some Republicans are taking the notion of a Rand Paul presidency, look at how far they’re going to shut down his views on foreign policy.

In the past three days alone, Texas Gov. Rick Perry used a Washington Post op-ed to warn about the dangers of “isolationism” and describe Paul as “curiously blind” to growing threats in Iraq. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accused the Kentucky senator on CNN of wanting a “withdrawal to fortress America.” And former Vice President Dick Cheney declared at a POLITICO Playbook luncheon on Monday that “isolationism is crazy,” while his daughter, Liz Cheney, said Paul “leaves something to be desired in terms of national security policy.”

The pre-emptive strikes suggest that many in GOP fear Paul is winning the foreign policy argument with the American people – and that that could make him a formidable candidate in 2016. After all, second-tier presidential hopefuls don’t usually get shouted down this way.

“I think the general fear on the part of a lot of leaders in the Republican Party is that there’s an isolationist temptation after two big wars, an isolationist temptation in the American electorate,” said Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who was a deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration. “And I think people are genuinely concerned about it and desirous of trying to stop it before it spreads further.”

...

I think that is only the case if the average voter is not truly educated on the candidates.  I think he is the best candidate from that lot for sure.  The least likely to play politics in important issues.  Even thought I'm skeptical of him he's the only one of them even close to change from the norm.    

I think that is only the case if the average voter is not truly educated on the candidates.  I think he is the best candidate from that lot for sure.  The least likely to play politics in important issues.  Even thought I'm skeptical of him he's the only one of them even close to change from the norm.   

There is very little chance of Rand Paul winning the race. Even if he is ahead, the other "mainstream" Republicans such as Bush and Huckabee would gang-up together to defeat him.

^ well that's the problem.. the GOP base is full of extremists. that makes it harder to get things done.. as mentioned before, the GOP nominee will have to go through a "i'm super conservative" primary cycle, and then when it comes to winning the general election votes, it's "i'm not a super right guy, i'm actually a centrist."

will be more difficult the republicans down the line. if i had to choose who would get the nomination, it would be rand paul.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/14/gop-self-destruction-millennials-conservatives-backlash

Conservatives are stuck in a perpetual outrage loop. The reappearance of Todd Akin, the horror-movie villain immortality of Sarah Palin, the unseemly celebration of the Hobby Lobby decision – these all speak to a chorus of "la-la-la-can't-hear-you" loud enough to drown out the voice of an entire generation. Late last week, the Reason Foundation released the results of a poll about that generation, the millennials; its signature finding was the confirmation of a mass abandonment of social conservatism and the GOP. This comes at a time when the conservative movement is increasingly synonymous with mean-spirited, prank-like and combative activism and self-important grand gestures. The millennial generation has repeatedly defined itself as the most socially tolerant of the modern era, but one thing it really can't stand is drama.

Advertisement

Republicans were already destined for piecemeal decimation due to the declining numbers of their core constituency. But they don't just have a demographic problem anymore; they have stylistic one. The conservative strategy of outrage upon outrage upon outrage bumps up against the policy preferences and the attitudes of millennials in perfect discord.

We all can recognize the right's tendency to respond to backlash with more "lash" (Akin didn't disappear, he doubled down on "legitimate rape"), but it seems to have gained speed with the age of social media and candidate tracking. The Tea Party's resistance to the leavening effect of establishment mores and political professionals has been a particularly effective accelerant. Palin's ability to put anything on the internet without any intermediary has rendered her as reckless as any tween with a SnapChat account. Akin's whiny denouncement of Washington insiders is likely to make him more credible with a certain kind of base voter. The midterms are, as we speak, producing another round of Fox News celebrities, whether or not they win their races: the Eric Cantor-vanquishing David Brat, Mississippi's Chris McDaniel and the hog-castrating mini-Palin, Jodi Ernst of Iowa.

Shockingly, Rand Paul Could be the GOP Nominee and Trouble for the Dems.
Young male voters are drawn to Libertarian positions on social issues.
More...http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/shockingly-rand-paul-could-be-gop-nominee-and-trouble-dems?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark

There are many things I like about Texas Gov. Rick Perry, including his stance on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. But apparently his new glasses haven’t altered his perception of the world, or allowed him to see it any more clearly.

There are obviously many important events going on in the world right now, but with 60,000 foreign children streaming across the Texas border, I am surprised Governor Perry has apparently still found time to mischaracterize and attack my foreign policy.

Governor Perry writes a fictionalized account of my foreign policy so mischaracterizing my views that I wonder if he’s even really read any of my policy papers.

In fact, some of Perry’s solutions for the current chaos in Iraq aren’t much different from what I’ve proposed, something he fails to mention. His solutions also aren’t much different from President Barack Obama’s, something he also fails to mention. Because interestingly enough, there aren’t that many good choices right now in dealing with this situation in Iraq.

...

Jewish donors to the 2016 presidential campaign, wary of Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) longstanding reputation for isolationism, are trying to figure out how a Paul presidency might treat Israel differently than previous presidencies. It doesn't take much figuring.

Had the famously libertarian Paul been president instead of Barack Obama or George W. Bush, he wouldn't have stopped Israel from taking out Iran's nuclear bomb capabilities when the taking was easy. Iran, as a result, would have been greatly diminished, rather than ascendant as it now is, in control of much of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and in pursuit of others.

Had Paul been president instead of Bill Clinton and George H. Bush, he wouldn't have forced Israel to make the many concessions that led to the disastrous Oslo Accords, which reinstated Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat in power, triggered intifadas that took 1,000 Israeli lives through bombs planted in buses and restaurants, and taught radicals that terrorism pays.

Had Paul been president instead of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he wouldn't have tried to prevent Israel from taking out Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor, and then punished Israel when it went ahead anyway by embargoing delivery of the F-16 fighters Israel needed for its defense.

...