Topic: GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist - page 96. (Read 205816 times)

Hillary and Bill had several scandals prior to becoming Pres (i.e Whitewater being the most famous); If she wins I'm smashing the TV and radio so I don't have to hear her for 4 or 8 years. Just say NO to Hillary!

Paul polls best against Shillary in this early time period.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/poll-hillary-clinton-a-strong-leader/1087/
The media has done their best keeping Shillary in the shadows for now, but her past is ripe for bombardment.

Rand Paul did the Israel trip back in January of 2013 and he did w/ private funding w/ an Evangelical delegation. During which, he called for an end to foreign aid including Israel. Of course, we all know that actions are stronger than words so just watch how he votes and not worry so much about how he calibrates the liberty message for broader consumption.

Rand is the best major candidate for Pres of the USA in a very long time. It will be really exciting to see how he builds on his current status.
He hasn't been in the news a lot recently, but last year was amazing for him.

considering what they've done to the palestinians, i'm thinking "national security" is just a euphemism for "fucking over the poor people." it's like how we enter other countries, depose their government, and call it "the defense industry."

Everyone has a 'right' (of sorts) to look out for their national security.  More and more in the case of Israel that security is predicated on leveraging American muscle.  I don't really hold it against the state of Israel that they use every mechanism at their disposal to strengthen this aspect of their national security.  By the same token, I think it unwise to continue to fill their lake behind our dam (e.g., doing shitty things to their neighbors.)  If the dam breaks I'll have limited sympathy for their plight.

I very much hold it against our own politicians who allow themselves to be influenced by lobbying muscle, and that is 10x the case when the lobbying muscle is from a foreign nation.  Especially when it results in actions which are against the interest of the U.S.

Clinton has been rimming the Israelis since she was First Lady.  She is one of the few who probably would not be required to show up in Tel Aviv in primary season.  I voted for Obama over her in 2008, but it was mostly a vote against Clinton, and very specifically for the aformentioned reason.  To the extent that I had any hope for Obama it was mostly because I figured his mom was an interesting person and independent thinker and thought maybe it would have rubbed of a bit.  Nope.  Oh well.  I didn't repeat that mistake in 2012.

i don't know how the machine is all set up, but it's crazy to think how israel has us held under such big time wraps. they are like the littlefinger of international politics.. no one thinks they have much sway, but in the background they do have a lot.

We'll know a lot after is mandatory visit to Israel demonstrate the requisite servility to whatever likudnick he meets.  All dempublicans are required to do so these days.  If he gets the thumbs up from the media after putting a check-mark in that box it will be meaningful.  Just as was the case with Obama.

If, OTOH, he gets the Howard Dean treatment it will mean something else.  Among the things it will mean, unfortunately, is that he doesn't have a chance except in very unusual circumstances.

we'll know more about rand paul and how much he wants to change things. if he accepts millions from unnamed sources, we'll know he will have sold out. basically, if he wins the primaries it means he will have sold himself.

In order to run for these kinds of seats you need to have friends w/ money or an outfit you serve that has money. It's tough for the likes of Justin Amash and Thomas Massie unless you have a national following via the Ron Paul days. Rand Paul is trying to build on that but even some of those that he endorses don't make it because they have heavy special interest money going against their guys at times.

most politicians are lawyers. they're mostly men too.. i don't like the fact that our ruling class is so monolithic. would be nice if we could limit the amount of lawyers that hold office.. since they aren't experts in other areas of society that are important, like technology and energy.

Seriously, These politicians do not have the type of knowledge base that is required to fix the problems we have. And with that, all the reasoning and logic in the world won't make them any wiser. If even one of them had any idea what so ever, the discussion would be about directed finance and fair distribution and the causal effect of hybridized manufacturing and its effect on production, growth, and influence though out world markets.

it's kind of a catch 22.. i dont' really want our government meddling with every other nation, acting as some sort of world police. but if we don't do it, then someone else will.. and either way, shit will be fucked up.

Ruling in this way is typically workable for a couple hundred years based on a read of history.  Depending on the quality of leadership and such.  We've been dedicated about it since the end of WW-II so I could see it persisting for some time.  Dynastic rule seems like a common downfall since by the laws of chance there will be a generation of losers eventually.

'Good economic policy' is to arrange a situation where one can write checks that the recipient won't cash.  Threat of force(*) is the most realistic way to achieve this.

* 'Threat of force' has various manifestations.  In Saudi Arabia, to use a common example, it can take the form of propping up a dynasty which is reliant on one to maintain power.

Our ability to affect the world with good economic policy would be far more powerful than our armed forces. Ruling with fear is a short term solution and ultimately costs us a lot more than it accomplishes.

What a laughable crock of century old propaganda bullshit!

When we lost the ability to intimidate the rest of the world by force, there will be a change and it won't be to almost any living American's liking.  A 'strong fiscal conservative' would simply trigger this event more quickly than otherwise (which would be OK with me to be honest.)

That said, one of the most refreshingly honest and prescient (and detestable) documents in recent memory is the PNAC one by Cheney, Rumsfeld, et-al.  The C stands for Century and the plan was a strategy which would preserve the present state of dominance for that period of time.  It is not inconceivable to me that it could be successful for the duration of my natural life (hopefully into the middle of the century.)  OTOH, it is also not inconceivable that it could collapse tomorrow.  For selfish reasons I'd rather see it happen soon while I still have the vigor to deal with things, or after I'm dead of natural causes.  Not in between.

It will take a strong fiscal conservative to save our country from it's impending economic demise and eventual financial neutering. We need what we used to have that enabled us to prosper and made us attractive to those coming from other countries: a frontiersman's strength to do whatever it takes to succeed and a culture of limitless opportunity based on your own initiative.

eh i wish this didn't happen, from either side... but seems like republicans do it more. they turn it into some media circus.. sometimes i feel the crazy shit politicians say is just for entertainment/distraction.

Although I didn't see the context, that particular comment seems kind of juvenile and not all that clever.  That is to say, there doesn't seem to be much rational logic behind it making it's appeal seems of the school-yard taunt variety.

If Paul ended up making Ventura appear the voice of reason (where Ventura is at a long self-cultivated disadvantage), that could siphon some of the more cerebral of right-wing away.  This could be highly important because from what I've seen of Ventura, his actual policy positions are not going to be very aligned with traditional Republican ones.

He sure as hell does. His squad comes up w/ zingers that rival what Team Palin come up with. Rand is just foaming at the mouth to pick Hillary apart and that's what is quite appealing in him as mainstream donors get to know him.