Topic: Top Obama Aide: Rand Paul Is ‘Most Intriguing’ Republican (Read 2406 times)
One of the main things that Ron Paul got lit up on is this supposed anti-semetic label that was bestowed upon him by right wing media for one. Rand is trying to avoid that term by being extra sensitive in how his positioning is being construed. The true neocons that masquerade as Israeli savers know deep down that Rand is opposed to their game of constant war as the solution to every problem. And, Rand is doing his best to trend his non-intervention message w/o allowing their buddies in the media to demagogue his position and fool the conservative base. I wish other ancaps would show more respect despite most of us having a no-nonsense way of doing things. At this point, the only way we're going to see a more free country at some time is for a libertarian republican like Rand to do what he does to have a chance at making it happen. Then, we can have the libertarian/ancap dinner club sessions of debating the more frivolous matters of downsizing the state to nothing. It's a long way off and an economic crash won't make it happen as a regional currency or global fiat one will come along. Tho, it would drive more people into BTC making all of us happy.
That's fine, I just can't respect them for it, and it's still a douchebag move.
I don't really doubt it. Working with congress has rather jaded me when it comes to some of their capabilities. I've come to realize that a lot of them honestly have no idea what they're talking about in the area of foreign affairs. McCain didn't even used to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and that was while he was running for president (just as an example).
Working with congress would likely get me to rip the heads off of babies. When I was still in the moving business, the corruption I had to deal with in all governments was horrible. The only saving grace was that there are a couple of countries more crooked than the US.I don't really doubt it. Working with congress has rather jaded me when it comes to some of their capabilities. I've come to realize that a lot of them honestly have no idea what they're talking about in the area of foreign affairs. McCain didn't even used to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and that was while he was running for president (just as an example).
Like Mexico, Italy, and Kuwait.
That's fine, I just can't respect them for it, and it's still a douchebag move.
I don't really doubt it. Working with congress has rather jaded me when it comes to some of their capabilities. I've come to realize that a lot of them honestly have no idea what they're talking about in the area of foreign affairs. McCain didn't even used to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and that was while he was running for president (just as an example).
I don't really doubt it. Working with congress has rather jaded me when it comes to some of their capabilities. I've come to realize that a lot of them honestly have no idea what they're talking about in the area of foreign affairs. McCain didn't even used to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and that was while he was running for president (just as an example).
As far as him having a flawed understanding, I doubt that very much. But he's saying what is politically expedient, just like every other politician, because that is the sole path to success in a country that has been steadily getting mre partisan over the last maybe 20 years. Every single day.
Indeed, I mention them here and there, and they were more widely discussed several years ago during the Ron Paul craze, but like I said, I mostly only talk about foreign affairs on here now. On international forums I'm often considered to be a staunch conservative. (which makes sense given the different bases that countries operate with)
As far as him having a flawed understanding, I doubt that very much. But he's saying what is politically expedient, just like every other politician, because that is the sole path to success in a country that has been steadily getting mre partisan over the last maybe 20 years. Every single day.
While we might agree that it isn't a very honorable path, it's the path that's being forced on all politicians at this point. At least forced if politicians want any chance of success.
Quote
I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue.
It tends to be within international affairs. Neo-colonialism outcry is all the rage, and in many cases I find it to be something resulting from a headless heart style syndrome, rather than based on realities of economic interactions. He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel? I imagine he understands the most he can do is slightly move the discussion towards smaller government and less military adventurism, but that's just being realistic. He can do absolutely nothing without power. So people can only do what they can do.
Like I said, I really only follow him through my interests in foreign affairs and pretty much his entire foreign policy platform thus far has been one of bashing Hillary Clinton and dishonestly representing foreign affairs as they currently stand and have transpired over the last six years, coupled with a deeply flawed understanding of our foreign aid structures.
He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel? I imagine he understands the most he can do is slightly move the discussion towards smaller government and less military adventurism, but that's just being realistic. He can do absolutely nothing without power. So people can only do what they can do.
Like I said, I really only follow him through my interests in foreign affairs and pretty much his entire foreign policy platform thus far has been one of bashing Hillary Clinton and dishonestly representing foreign affairs as they currently stand and have transpired over the last six years, coupled with a deeply flawed understanding of our foreign aid structures.
He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel? Yep. There are political realities that candidates must deal with. That is the nature of the beast in politics. If he makes it into office we will see where he really stands on the issue.
Quote
The positions you espouse here are pretty typically democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the case. That kind of is the meaning of the word partisan, although I don't find you are horribly so.
I agree, but that is mostly because I only talk about foreign affairs here, where I tend to be much more liberal, I tend to be more libertarian in my economic and social stances, with a couple of economic exceptions. I've also been painted a democrat often because I wasn't in love with Ron Paul's platform and argued against it. Which, at the time, automatically made me a socialist.I am strongly against domestic protectionism (something that President Obama in part campaigned on).
Very pro-free trade.
In favor of privatized social security.
Pro-second amendment / against gun bans.
Pro-sweat shops / Bangladesh garment factories.
I don't buy into the neocolonial argument presented with regards to US operations overseas.
Pro-TANF reforms
anti-affirmative action
I actually like Wal-Mart
Anti-fair trade
Pro genetically modified food
Some areas where I tend to differ more from conservatives / social conservatives:
International affairs (because modern conservatives simply have consistently poor or non-existent foreign affairs platforms, they tend to rather rely on economic and social issues to win power, not good foreign policy).
Universal Healthcare
Most social issues (which I tend to be more libertarian on, including issues like abortion so non-social conservative / religious conservative).
The current desire to decrease food stamp benefits and welfare even further (despite the fact that we are operating under Republican proposed reforms).
The Fairtax
Immigration
I am anti many domestic agricultural subsidies
Where I am neutral:
Environmental policies
War on Drugs policies
And I did chuckle over Wal Mart.
But you never really discuss those issues, so I can't really use them in a generalization of your positions.
Quote
The positions you espouse here are pretty typically democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the case. That kind of is the meaning of the word partisan, although I don't find you are horribly so.
I agree, but that is mostly because I only talk about foreign affairs here, where I tend to be much more liberal, I tend to be more libertarian in my economic and social stances, with a couple of economic exceptions. I've also been painted a democrat often because I wasn't in love with Ron Paul's platform and argued against it. Which, at the time, automatically made me a socialist.I am strongly against domestic protectionism (something that President Obama in part campaigned on).
Very pro-free trade.
In favor of privatized social security.
Pro-second amendment / against gun bans.
Pro-sweat shops / Bangladesh garment factories.
I don't buy into the neocolonial argument presented with regards to US operations overseas.
Pro-TANF reforms
anti-affirmative action
I actually like Wal-Mart
Anti-fair trade
Pro genetically modified food
Some areas where I tend to differ more from conservatives / social conservatives:
International affairs (because modern conservatives simply have consistently poor or non-existent foreign affairs platforms, they tend to rather rely on economic and social issues to win power, not good foreign policy).
Universal Healthcare
Most social issues (which I tend to be more libertarian on, including issues like abortion so non-social conservative / religious conservative).
The current desire to decrease food stamp benefits and welfare even further (despite the fact that we are operating under Republican proposed reforms).
The Fairtax
Immigration
I am anti many domestic agricultural subsidies
Where I am neutral:
Environmental policies
War on Drugs policies
He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel? I imagine he understands the most he can do is slightly move the discussion towards smaller government and less military adventurism, but that's just being realistic. He can do absolutely nothing without power. So people can only do what they can do.
He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel? Quote
His foreign policy is similar to several humanitarian leaders we discussed before....handouts to other countries tend to be counterproductive, as it causes corruption and dependency. I thought you agreed with me on that one, but I could be wrong...it was quite a while ago.
I don't recall the conversation. But saying he wants to pull all aid, is like saying he doesn't care about the Suez Canal, or about maintaining US Spheres of influence in Latin and South America, or about being able to rely on Azerbaijan to put pressure on Iran, etc. Aid, even small amounts, are vital international relations tools that we rely on to protect our interests overseas. He would paint aid as us giving out freebies, but really we do it because it is mutually beneficial for us and acts as important sources of political capital for us to utilize. Him saying he is against aid, is almost tantamount to him saying he isn't interested in the US playing a role in foreign affairs or in guarding our overseas interests. Aid is one of the primary ways in which we do that.Aid can have a Dutch Disease effect and from a humanitarian level and economic level I'm not very in love with the way that aid is dispersed, either through government or (especially) through the private market. I think it is one of the least accountable markets in existence. But that doesn't change the fact that aid is an important political tool.
Quote
The positions you espouse here are pretty typically democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the case. That kind of is the meaning of the word partisan, although I don't find you are horribly so.
I agree, but that is mostly because I only talk about foreign affairs here, where I tend to be much more liberal, I tend to be more libertarian in my economic and social stances, with a couple of economic exceptions. I've also been painted a democrat often because I wasn't in love with Ron Paul's platform and argued against it. Which, at the time, automatically made me a socialist.He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel? 
He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
If he wants to stop aid to Israel, he won't say so in public and he won't vote that way until his second term as president. If he gets that far. Until then, he can believe whatever he wants, but he won't be voicing or voting his conscience. At least not so long as he has national political aspirations, or the tides turn dramatically on popular support for israel. The religious component makes that very unlikely I think.
He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Quote
His foreign policy is similar to several humanitarian leaders we discussed before....handouts to other countries tend to be counterproductive, as it causes corruption and dependency. I thought you agreed with me on that one, but I could be wrong...it was quite a while ago.
I don't recall the conversation. But saying he wants to pull all aid, is like saying he doesn't care about the Suez Canal, or about maintaining US Spheres of influence in Latin and South America, or about being able to rely on Azerbaijan to put pressure on Iran, etc. Aid, even small amounts, are vital international relations tools that we rely on to protect our interests overseas. He would paint aid as us giving out freebies, but really we do it because it is mutually beneficial for us and acts as important sources of political capital for us to utilize. Him saying he is against aid, is almost tantamount to him saying he isn't interested in the US playing a role in foreign affairs or in guarding our overseas interests. Aid is one of the primary ways in which we do that.Aid can have a Dutch Disease effect and from a humanitarian level and economic level I'm not very in love with the way that aid is dispersed, either through government or (especially) through the private market. I think it is one of the least accountable markets in existence. But that doesn't change the fact that aid is an important political tool.
Jump to: