View Full Version : Rand Paul: Romney's wrong on Middle East, defense spending
Rand Paul: Romney's wrong on Middle East, defense spending
By Rand Paul, Special to CNN
updated 7:40 AM EDT, Wed October 10, 2012
(CNN) -- This week, I will campaign for Gov. Mitt Romney. I believe this election will and should be about moving America back from the edge of the abyss on which we stand, where our debt and spending threaten to overwhelm and drown us. Romney's belief in free markets, limited government and trade make him the clear choice to lead our country come January.
I do not, however, support a call for intervention in Syria. And, if such intervention were being contemplated, it is absolutely necessary that Congress give any such authority to the president. No president, Republican or Democrat, has the unilateral power to take our nation to war without the authority of the legislature.
At times, I have been encouraged by Romney's foreign policy. I agree with his call to end the war in Afghanistan sooner rather than later and with his skepticism of, and call for reform in, foreign aid, but I am a bit dismayed by his foreign policy speech (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/08/full-remarks-romney-foreign-policy-speech/) Monday, titled "Mantle of Leadership."
Romney chose to criticize President Obama for seeking to cut a bloated Defense Department and for not being bellicose enough in the Middle East, two assertions with which I cannot agree.
Defense and war spending has grown 137% since 2001. That kind of growth is not sustainable.
...
More: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/rand-paul-romney-foreign-policy
cajuncocoa
10-10-2012, 06:23 AM
I believe this election will and should be about moving America back from the edge of the abyss on which we stand, where our debt and spending threaten to overwhelm and drown us. Romney's belief in free markets, limited government and trade make him the clear choice to lead our country come January.
If Rand really believes this, he should stop campaigning for Romney immediately. Especially if Rand is concerned about interventionism and defense spending.
SilentBull
10-10-2012, 06:58 AM
If Rand really believes this, he should stop campaigning for Romney immediately. Especially if Rand is concerned about interventionism and defense spending.
Actually no. It's the reason why republicans are willing to actually listen to Rand's point of view on this. Without his endorsement of Romney, republicans would automatically reject anything Rand says.
robert68
10-10-2012, 08:38 AM
Actually no. It's the reason why republicans are willing to actually listen to Rand's point of view on this. Without his endorsement of Romney, republicans would automatically reject anything Rand says.
His endorsement carry's the message their disagreements are not a big deal, no matter what else he says.
SilentBull
10-10-2012, 09:11 AM
His endorsement carry's the message their disagreements are not a big deal, no matter what else he says.
The evidence points to the opposite, and the evidence are the number of good old republicans that are starting to understand that foreign aid may not be a good thing.
FSP-Rebel
10-10-2012, 10:13 AM
Actually no. It's the reason why republicans are willing to actually listen to Rand's point of view on this. Without his endorsement of Romney, republicans would automatically reject anything Rand says.
Amen
FrankRep
10-10-2012, 10:15 AM
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120613110719-rand-paul-left-tease.jpg
Rand Paul: Romney's wrong on Middle East, defense spending (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/rand-paul-romney-foreign-policy/index.html)
CNN
October 10, 2012
This week, I will campaign for Gov. Mitt Romney. I believe this election will and should be about moving America back from the edge of the abyss on which we stand, where our debt and spending threaten to overwhelm and drown us. Romney's belief in free markets, limited government and trade make him the clear choice to lead our country come January.
I do not, however, support a call for intervention in Syria. And, if such intervention were being contemplated, it is absolutely necessary that Congress give any such authority to the president. No president, Republican or Democrat, has the unilateral power to take our nation to war without the authority of the legislature.
At times, I have been encouraged by Romney's foreign policy. I agree with his call to end the war in Afghanistan sooner rather than later and with his skepticism of, and call for reform in, foreign aid, but I am a bit dismayed by his foreign policy speech Monday, titled "Mantle of Leadership."
...
Related News:
Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Speech Promises Bigger Government and New Wars
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13162-romney-foreign-policy-speech-promises-bigger-government-and-new-wars
Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Shows Strong CFR, Neo-con Influence
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/12974-romney-forei
georgiaboy
10-10-2012, 10:16 AM
lead on, Rand.
KingNothing
10-10-2012, 10:21 AM
If Rand really believes this, he should stop campaigning for Romney immediately. Especially if Rand is concerned about interventionism and defense spending.
You're an absolute joke at this point. You STILL have no idea what Rand is doing, do you? He's playing the game, doing the things that don't actually matter (endorsements), while maintaining appropriate rhetoric and the best voting record in the Senate. Republicans embrace him because he doesn't embarrass them and holds positions that are popular to most Americans and, by the way, these positions are completely in line with the Liberty movement. At some point you're going to have to give up your irrational hatred of Rand, recognize that he's on his way to becoming the most popular libertarian in modern American history, and welcome the fact that we finally have a major player in politics.
radiofriendly
10-10-2012, 10:22 AM
Love this bit:
Before taking our country closer to war, shouldn’t we at least ask the viewpoint of the significant Christian population in Syria? News reports indicate they are wary of the rebels and are either sitting the fight out or siding with al-Assad. Al-Assad is by no means a saint but Christians flocked to Syria from a war-torn Iraq because they feared al-Assad less than the Islamic government we brought into being.
Who else talks about this? It's thrilling and depressing when you think how few...but more people are listening.
KingNothing
10-10-2012, 10:23 AM
His endorsement carry's the message their disagreements are not a big deal, no matter what else he says.
Has a political endorsement ever won a candidate anything, ever? Endorsements are nonsense.
Sola_Fide
10-10-2012, 10:26 AM
But we are in too many places, too often, and we don't seem to even know the reason -- or where we will end up when we're done. This foreign policy has created more enemies than it has vanquished. It has siphoned trillions of America's dollars. It has cost tens of thousands of casualties in the loss of the lives and limbs of our soldiers.
Not bad Rand...
LibertyEagle
10-10-2012, 10:44 AM
Actually no. It's the reason why republicans are willing to actually listen to Rand's point of view on this. Without his endorsement of Romney, republicans would automatically reject anything Rand says.
+rep for having what used to be called common sense.
supermario21
10-10-2012, 10:48 AM
One of the comments I read was "If more Republicans adopted this position, I'd vote with them 100% of the time." You see, Rand is our communicator. Ron is our inspiration, brains, and motivator, but Rand is the great communicator/salesman here. Try to talk to an anti-war person about Ron Paul. I have, and even they continue to say he's a kook and out there. Rand is getting people to listen. The momentum is on our side. Look at what he's already done. He's already getting more RINOs to come out of the closet, like Lindsey Graham attacking Rand's PAC ads in West Virginia. The map will be much different by 2014, and it will be to our advantage. And this is kind of another reason why I will vote Romney. Rand might actually have some swaying power and influence over him if the landscape continues to favor us. Do you think Obama is going to listen to Rand? No. He'll just court Graham and McCain and call interventionism bipartisanship.
LibertyEagle
10-10-2012, 10:53 AM
Supermario, it's your business, but I think you are dreaming if you think Rand will change Romney. Romney's father was a Rockefeller-Republican. In other words, a big government leftist globalist with an R after his name. Willard did not fall far from that tree.
How do you change someone who has something so fundamentally wrong with their being to believe that it is alright to pick up and detain Americans with no due process of law, as in the NDAA? How could anyone even close to sanity, much less anyone who had any respect at all for the Constitution, support those things?
Has anyone asked him about the kill list? I bet he supports that too.
Matthew5
10-10-2012, 10:57 AM
Love this bit:
Before taking our country closer to war, shouldn’t we at least ask the viewpoint of the significant Christian population in Syria? News reports indicate they are wary of the rebels and are either sitting the fight out or siding with al-Assad. Al-Assad is by no means a saint but Christians flocked to Syria from a war-torn Iraq because they feared al-Assad less than the Islamic government we brought into being.
Who else talks about this? It's thrilling and depressing when you think how few...but more people are listening.
And with that statement, Rand just regained my trust. This shows true insight.
Sola_Fide
10-10-2012, 11:00 AM
One of the comments I read was "If more Republicans adopted this position, I'd vote with them 100% of the time." You see, Rand is our communicator. Ron is our inspiration, brains, and motivator, but Rand is the great communicator/salesman here. Try to talk to an anti-war person about Ron Paul. I have, and even they continue to say he's a kook and out there. Rand is getting people to listen. The momentum is on our side. Look at what he's already done. He's already getting more RINOs to come out of the closet, like Lindsey Graham attacking Rand's PAC ads in West Virginia. The map will be much different by 2014, and it will be to our advantage. And this is kind of another reason why I will vote Romney. Rand might actually have some swaying power and influence over him if the landscape continues to favor us. Do you think Obama is going to listen to Rand? No. He'll just court Graham and McCain and call interventionism bipartisanship.
No way bro. Don't do it. Rand's endorsement was more to bring attention to Rand, not to suggest that people should actually vote for (R)omney.
Sola_Fide
10-10-2012, 11:02 AM
Love this bit:
Before taking our country closer to war, shouldn’t we at least ask the viewpoint of the significant Christian population in Syria? News reports indicate they are wary of the rebels and are either sitting the fight out or siding with al-Assad. Al-Assad is by no means a saint but Christians flocked to Syria from a war-torn Iraq because they feared al-Assad less than the Islamic government we brought into being.
Who else talks about this? It's thrilling and depressing when you think how few...but more people are listening.
The only other person I've heard talk about the negative effects of our foreign policy on Christians in the middle east is Ron.
Matthew5
10-10-2012, 11:10 AM
The only other person I've heard talk about the negative effects of our foreign policy on Christians in the middle east is Ron.
The sad irony is that the neocon's foreign policy is very anti-Christian (i.e. it hurts Christians in the Middle East). I am very thankful that someone is pointing out the hypocrisy. Perhaps this will open some eyes.
AuH20
10-10-2012, 11:11 AM
You can calmly disagree with someone without making a divisive spectacle of your self. And Rand Paul has perfected this critical balance.
LibertyEagle
10-10-2012, 11:31 AM
The sad irony is that the neocon's foreign policy is very anti-Christian (i.e. it hurts Christians in the Middle East). I am very thankful that someone is pointing out the hypocrisy. Perhaps this will open some eyes.
I don't know, but I am having a blast with it right now. :D
georgiaboy
10-10-2012, 12:23 PM
The only other person I've heard talk about the negative effects of our foreign policy on Christians in the middle east is Ron.
For completeness, U.S. foreign policy is negatively affecting Christians everywhere, as well as how Christians are perceived. Very sad. Lest we forget,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpXHYtkOS8
Fortunately, the Pauls are bringing many Christians to their senses.
KingNothing
10-10-2012, 12:46 PM
The only people who are not hurt by our current foreign policy work in the military industrial complex. And even then, their benefit is only temporary. This reckless spending and belligerence is going to come back to bite us, big time. Nothing that can't last forever lasts forever. Sooner or later flow of dollars will be cut off and harsh adjustments will be made.
Bastiat's The Law
10-10-2012, 01:13 PM
One of the comments I read was "If more Republicans adopted this position, I'd vote with them 100% of the time." You see, Rand is our communicator. Ron is our inspiration, brains, and motivator, but Rand is the great communicator/salesman here. Try to talk to an anti-war person about Ron Paul. I have, and even they continue to say he's a kook and out there. Rand is getting people to listen. The momentum is on our side. Look at what he's already done. He's already getting more RINOs to come out of the closet, like Lindsey Graham attacking Rand's PAC ads in West Virginia. The map will be much different by 2014, and it will be to our advantage. And this is kind of another reason why I will vote Romney. Rand might actually have some swaying power and influence over him if the landscape continues to favor us. Do you think Obama is going to listen to Rand? No. He'll just court Graham and McCain and call interventionism bipartisanship.
Your first part was great about Rand being the communicator, but I don't want Romney to win. I want Rand to run in 2016.
supermario21
10-10-2012, 01:19 PM
Your first part was great about Rand being the communicator, but I don't want Romney to win. I want Rand to run in 2016.
Look, part of my view of voting for Romney was being in Ohio. If I lived in a non-battleground I'd write in Ron. Actually, I even did on my ballot, I just didn't mark his oval. I think guys like Rand will be able to put more pressure on Romney if there are more of us holding him accountable. If we showed up to be a powerful Republican force that would jump ship or even prop up Rand as a primary challenger in 2016, Romney would feel more pressured to listen to us. If he wins and we all stay home, what does he owe to us? It's the same reason I don't want Obama to win. Do you think Obama needs to listen to Rand or his supporters? No. But Romney will probably have to listen more to Rand's ideas as they are really gaining traction around the country.
As a whole, regardless of how you vote for president, I truly feel that electing liberty candidates to the Senate should be our number 1 priority. The Senate is where an individual (or group) can wield its power, especially when its a small number. If there were 10 Rand's in the Senate come 2014 you better believe Romney will be listening to our positions.
AlexAmore
10-10-2012, 01:47 PM
Note to self: Don't hire cajuncocoa as my campaign strategist.
cajuncocoa
10-10-2012, 02:19 PM
Note to self: Don't hire cajuncocoa as my campaign strategist.LOL...that's good, because you probably couldn't afford me. My price is total honesty void of game-playing.
FrankRep
10-10-2012, 03:03 PM
Note to self: Don't hire cajuncocoa as my campaign strategist.
I agree. :-p
idiom
10-10-2012, 03:22 PM
For those not paying attention, in the perverse logic of politics, Rands endorsement of Romney allows him to attack Romney more effectively while actively campaigning for Liberty issues.
It may be the worst deal Romney ever took.
jmdrake
10-10-2012, 03:44 PM
Love this bit:
Before taking our country closer to war, shouldn’t we at least ask the viewpoint of the significant Christian population in Syria? News reports indicate they are wary of the rebels and are either sitting the fight out or siding with al-Assad. Al-Assad is by no means a saint but Christians flocked to Syria from a war-torn Iraq because they feared al-Assad less than the Islamic government we brought into being.
Who else talks about this? It's thrilling and depressing when you think how few...but more people are listening.
Gotta +rep you on that. Nobody wants to own up to the fact that Iraqi Christians were actually better off under Saddam.
jmdrake
10-10-2012, 03:53 PM
One of the comments I read was "If more Republicans adopted this position, I'd vote with them 100% of the time." You see, Rand is our communicator. Ron is our inspiration, brains, and motivator, but Rand is the great communicator/salesman here. Try to talk to an anti-war person about Ron Paul. I have, and even they continue to say he's a kook and out there. Rand is getting people to listen.
I have found the exact opposite to be true. Those I know on the antiwar left either like Ron Paul and hate Rand or simply hate Rand. And that's just based on what they know about Rand regarding the civil rights act. If they knew what Rand had to say about Gitmo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn52STCysYI) in order to distance himself from his father, they would really despise him.
The momentum is on our side. Look at what he's already done. He's already getting more RINOs to come out of the closet, like Lindsey Graham attacking Rand's PAC ads in West Virginia. The map will be much different by 2014, and it will be to our advantage. And this is kind of another reason why I will vote Romney. Rand might actually have some swaying power and influence over him if the landscape continues to favor us. Do you think Obama is going to listen to Rand? No. He'll just court Graham and McCain and call interventionism bipartisanship.
:rolleyes: If Rand is convincing Ron Paul supporters to vote for Romney, then my worst fears are realized and in our attempt to co-opt the GOP we ourselves are being co-opted. Think about it. Where does it end? If Romney wins this year and gets re-elected in 2016 and Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio manage to "edge out" Rand in 2020....? How long with the GOP be able to "dangle carrots" in front of liberty voters under the guise that "Rand Paul will have 'influence' over the GOP nominee"? This scenario has happened before.
cajuncocoa
10-10-2012, 04:16 PM
:rolleyes: If Rand is convincing Ron Paul supporters to vote for Romney, then my worst fears are realized and in our attempt to co-opt the GOP we ourselves are being co-opted. Think about it. Where does it end? If Romney wins this year and gets re-elected in 2016 and Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio manage to "edge out" Rand in 2020....? How long with the GOP be able to "dangle carrots" in front of liberty voters under the guise that "Rand Paul will have 'influence' over the GOP nominee"? This scenario has happened before.
And if Rand isn't convincing Ron Paul supporters to vote for Romney, I predict the establishment will throw him under the bus on Nov. 7. He is being used, and sadly, not many here realize it.
Rudeman
10-10-2012, 04:27 PM
You guys are comparing Rand to Ron but even Ron endorsed candidates he didn't agree with. If Rand were to go around attacking Republicans endlessly like you guys want he'd be completely marginalized and they would probably take a shot at taking him down come reelection.
AlexAmore
10-10-2012, 04:39 PM
And if Rand isn't convincing Ron Paul supporters to vote for Romney, I predict the establishment will throw him under the bus on Nov. 7. He is being used, and sadly, not many here realize it.
Even if you're right, using the same logic he would have been thrown under the bus a long time ago if he didn't endorse. He would not have gotten in front of as many voters.
With this strategy he can continue to build up momentum. Hopefully become a big enough player that they need him more than he needs them.
BamaFanNKy
10-10-2012, 05:07 PM
JMDrake shows his disdain for Rand. We get it, No One But Ron.
robert68
10-10-2012, 05:14 PM
Has a political endorsement ever won a candidate anything, ever? Endorsements are nonsense.
Of course they have (and do). You don’t get something for nothing in politics. As President, Romney will control which candidates receive Republican Party campaign funds, to pick just one.
cajuncocoa
10-10-2012, 05:16 PM
JMDrake shows his disdain for Rand. We get it, No One But Ron.Ron is special for a reason.
BamaFanNKy
10-10-2012, 06:58 PM
Ron is special for a reason.
His ability to not be elected to a higher office than Congressman? Come on dude, the double standard on this board is insane. Ron is special because some of you have elevated the man higher than any human should be.
cajuncocoa
10-10-2012, 07:03 PM
His ability to not be elected to a higher office than Congressman? Come on dude, the double standard on this board is insane. Ron is special because some of you have elevated the man higher than any human should be.
1. I'm not a "dude"
2. The fact that he has not won a higher office than Congressman is the fault of uneducated voters, not his. I would rather see someone like Ron Paul lose with honor, than win by pandering to these idiots.
LibertyEagle
10-10-2012, 07:12 PM
1. I'm not a "dude"
2. The fact that he has not won a higher office than Congressman is the fault of uneducated voters, not his. I would rather see someone like Ron Paul lose with honor, than win by pandering to these idiots.
If you want to insult Rand, GTF out of his subforum to do it. :mad:
AlexAmore
10-10-2012, 07:15 PM
I would rather see someone like Ron Paul lose with honor, than win by pandering to these idiots.
Not with our boys and girls dying everyday overseas. I think we're way past the point our forefathers were when they said "fuck this shit" and took up arms.
Fun Fact: Our forefathers used very dishonourable guerilla warfare against the redcoats who expected face-to-face combat. Of course they had to do this. They were out manned, outgunned. Hmm sounds like us. So maybe Rand being a bit disingenuous isn't the end of the world.
Jamesiv1
10-10-2012, 07:21 PM
I think Rand will get more attention/play-time/media space if Obama wins. If Romney wins, it will be all about Romney. If Obama wins, more and more Republicans will have to re-think and re-tool their party.
cajuncocoa
10-10-2012, 07:22 PM
If you want to insult Rand, GTF out of his subforum to do it. :mad:The post you're quoting is discussing Ron, not Rand. If you take that as an "insult" against Rand, you're waaaay too thin-skinned.
Jamesiv1
10-10-2012, 07:29 PM
For those not paying attention, in the perverse logic of politics, Rands endorsement of Romney allows him to attack Romney more effectively while actively campaigning for Liberty issues.
It may be the worst deal Romney ever took.
+rep
Great point.
"I enthusiastically and whole-heartedly endorse Governor Romney as President of the United States. But I gotta say I don't agree with him on a couple of his dumb-ass policies, and here's why... [insert truth bombs here]"
Rock On, Rand.
ClydeCoulter
10-10-2012, 07:42 PM
So, come one come all, let's play the us vs them game. Twisted and warped, it part of the twerp, so play along if you will, if not YOU LOSE. slash sarc
Rudeman
10-10-2012, 08:13 PM
+rep
Great point.
"I enthusiastically and whole-heartedly endorse Governor Romney as President of the United States. But I gotta say I don't agree with him on a couple of his dumb-ass policies, and here's why... [insert truth bombs here]"
Rock On, Rand.
You add the endorsement with Rand being one of the first to proclaim that Romney will win or is winning and it gives him more flexibility. Rand is sort of doing the opposite of what the Ron Paul critics did. Romney is great except for his foreign policy.
idiom
10-10-2012, 08:33 PM
The beauty of it is any time he wanted to he could expand the attack to "Romney is great except for foreign policy and domestic policy."
Oh and I care about the anti-war lefts opinion of rand about >.< that much. They left us high and dry since 2008. Partisan blighters.
I think the debate bump for Romney scared Rand, hehe. Notice how he "re-endorses" Romney in the first paragraph and then spends the entire rest of the article attacking him. It's pure genius. By the end nobody will even remember what he said at the beginning.
I know it'll probably never happen, but I would love to see him say this to Sean Hannity's face: "This foreign policy has created more enemies than it has vanquished."
FrancisMarion
10-10-2012, 09:53 PM
Rand gives me some hope.
So tired of reading the few Rand haters. If they were honest and studied Ron's past they wouldn't like him either.
Matt Collins
10-10-2012, 10:54 PM
I would rather see someone like Ron Paul lose with honor, than win by pandering to these idiots.Then winning back your liberty isn't very important to you if you're not willing to do what it takes to get good candidates elected.
Matt Collins
10-10-2012, 11:01 PM
He is being used, and sadly, not many here realize it.LOLz, Rand is a bit smarter than the establishment.
NoOneButPaul
10-10-2012, 11:02 PM
So tired of reading the few Rand haters. If they were honest and studied Ron's past they wouldn't like him either.
This is the part that gets me... Ron's done a lot of things people here would have killed others for.
coffeewithgames
10-10-2012, 11:04 PM
Actually no. It's the reason why republicans are willing to actually listen to Rand's point of view on this. Without his endorsement of Romney, republicans would automatically reject anything Rand says.
Okay, perhaps I'm not in the Rand bubble that some are, I don't know. It seems to me, that most here think that Rand is winning people over and listen to his points of view on certain topics, when I don't see it. Politics is not about actually having a point based on reason/history/facts. Politics is about soundbytes. Rand has some pretty HORRENDOUS soundbytes, as does Jack Hunter (see Rand's new media guy).
When the machine turns on Rand, and Sean Hannity, Rush, Beck, Levin, Boortz (it will then be Cain), and others don't invite him on, can't find time for him, slander/lie and change polls leaving him out...am I supposed to believe that your average zombie voter that is too lazy to watch a video, read an article, read a book, or listen to a CD/tape on something is going to think Rand is a standup guy still? The zombies go in groups.
Again, maybe the reason Rand is now speaking out on these topics is because he knows his ship will have sailed if Romney wins, and that his endorsement and hopes for a 2016 miracle will have been all for nothing?
I honestly can't tell you one of one typical braindead R voter from my Facebook page, that thinks anything on their own, outside of what they hear from Fox.
I'm being honest, what am I missing here?
AuH20
10-10-2012, 11:06 PM
LOLz, Rand is a bit smarter than the establishment.
He learned at his father's knee. Observing and keeping notes. He's not going to take Dad's route and become marginalized right before the 'endzone'.
AuH20
10-10-2012, 11:09 PM
Okay, perhaps I'm not in the Rand bubble that some are, I don't know. It seems to me, that most here think that Rand is winning people over and listen to his points of view on certain topics, when I don't see it. Politics is not about actually having a point based on reason/history/facts. Politics is about soundbytes. Rand has some pretty HORRENDOUS soundbytes, as does Jack Hunter (see Rand's new media guy).
When the machine turns on Rand, and Sean Hannity, Rush, Beck, Levin, Boortz (it will then be Cain), and others don't invite him on, can't find time for him, slander/lie and change polls leaving him out...am I supposed to believe that your average zombie voter that is too lazy to watch a video, read an article, read a book, or listen to a CD/tape on something is going to think Rand is a standup guy still? The zombies go in groups.
Again, maybe the reason Rand is now speaking out on these topics is because he knows his ship will have sailed if Romney wins, and that his endorsement and hopes for a 2016 miracle will have been all for nothing?
I honestly can't tell you one of one typical braindead R voter from my Facebook page, that thinks anything on their own, outside of what they hear from Fox.
I'm being honest, what am I missing here?
The environment is changing. Europe is on the brink of disaster. The United States is spiraling right behind it, in a debt induced death spiral. Voters cannot continue to stay in their self-enclosed bubbles.
coffeewithgames
10-10-2012, 11:15 PM
The environment is changing. Europe is on the brink of disaster. The United States is spiraling right behind it, in a debt induced death spiral. Voters cannot continue to stay in their self-enclosed bubbles.
I don't doubt the economics won't last, but I don't see that changing the people. They will only care about surviving, and who will give them more $$$$$. Definitely not about somebody saying they need more personal responsibility.
I don't miss the "brink of disaster" stuff. I know these people though, and if Fox, talk radio, etc. are telling them which way to go, they will go that way. They cannot think, and are too lazy to have discussions. As soon as you drop facts on them, they start name-calling...because it's how they are trained.
Rudeman
10-10-2012, 11:19 PM
I don't doubt the economics won't last, but I don't see that changing the people. They will only care about surviving, and who will give them more $$$$$. Definitely not about somebody saying they need more personal responsibility.
I don't miss the "brink of disaster" stuff. I know these people though, and if Fox, talk radio, etc. are telling them which way to go, they will go that way. They cannot think, and are too lazy to have discussions. As soon as you drop facts on them, they start name-calling...because it's how they are trained.
Do you think we've made any progress since 2007?
coffeewithgames
10-10-2012, 11:38 PM
Do you think we've made any progress since 2007?
Honestly? With the amount of money spent? No. I think this year shows you they have firewalls in place, and if you aren't one of the "10 fat men", nothing will change...that's 10 fat men just on the Republican side according to Doug Wead.
Maybe I'm missing what you would call "progress"? Versus what I would call progress?
Honestly? With the amount of money spent? No. I think this year shows you they have firewalls in place, and if you aren't one of the "10 fat men", nothing will change...that's 10 fat men just on the Republican side according to Doug Wead.
Maybe I'm missing what you would call "progress"? Versus what I would call progress?The amount of people that have joined our "movement". We never had enough to win the presidential election. We have educated and woken up a hell of a lot of people though that are solid supporters of Ron Paul. Rand is actually gaining support of mainstream Republicans with his efforts against foreign aid etc even though most of their representatives still vote in support of it. I read quite a few neocon(ish) blogs and Rand is gaining popularity. All we needed was for Ron to convince Republicans then we could have had enough independents, anti-war, and pro-pot people; then we would have defeated Obama easily. We needed those Republicans. Rand is working on that.
carclinic
10-11-2012, 01:37 PM
More: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/rand-paul-romney-foreign-policy
Rand is no where close to a peace candidate. America's foreign policy is so marred by lunacy, that it appears "extreme" to be sensible.
Rand Paul is 100% right.
Honestly? With the amount of money spent? No. I think this year shows you they have firewalls in place, and if you aren't one of the "10 fat men", nothing will change...that's 10 fat men just on the Republican side according to Doug Wead.
Maybe I'm missing what you would call "progress"? Versus what I would call progress?
Besides the fact that multiple new congressmen will be elected on a liberty platform, that auditing the Fed is now essentially mandatory for all Republicans to support, that people are even TALKING about the Federal Reserve, that Laura Ingraham can essentially advocate non-interventionism with Senator Rand Paul on her show, that some mainstream Republicans now want a gold standard, that more and more Republicans are coming out against the PATRIOT Act, against the NDAA, and against the TSA, and that a libertarian is now positioned to be a serious player with a legitimate chance to win in 2016?
Yeah besides that, no progress.
coffeewithgames
10-11-2012, 07:59 PM
Besides the fact that multiple new congressmen will be elected on a liberty platform, that auditing the Fed is now essentially mandatory for all Republicans to support, that people are even TALKING about the Federal Reserve, that Laura Ingraham can essentially advocate non-interventionism with Senator Rand Paul on her show, that some mainstream Republicans now want a gold standard, that more and more Republicans are coming out against the PATRIOT Act, against the NDAA, and against the TSA, and that a libertarian is now positioned to be a serious player with a legitimate chance to win in 2016?
Yeah besides that, no progress.
Since when has having anything in the Republican platform meant anything? Seriously? They had getting rid of the Dept. of Education in there didn't they? As for Laura Ingraham, I heard the interview, and she wasn't exactly friendly sounding...then again, I don't listen to her often, so perhaps that's how she always is?
Multiple new Congressmen? How many have we gained, versus how many are the same, and how many have lost? Your losing Ron Paul's seat to who?
As for Republicans coming out against the PATRIOT Act and NDAA, I don't know many of those. Perhaps it's because most of the "Republicans" I know are in the South? Watch Fox News? Listen to talk radio? And can't be bothered with reading an article, "googling" a question, or watching a video outside of Fox?
As for, "...that a libertarian is now positioned to be a serious player with a legitimate chance to win in 2016?"
Who is that? Romney if he wins in 2012, and runs again in 2016? Didn't realize he was considered a libertarian.
Since when has having anything in the Republican platform meant anything?
I don't think I ever mentioned the platform. I was talking about what the candidates themselves were campaigning on, which absolutely does matter.
As for Laura Ingraham, I heard the interview, and she wasn't exactly friendly sounding
Not sure how you could have come away with that impression. She was talking the whole time about how the GOP needs to stop being married to Bush's interventionist foreign policy, and she was very harsh on Romney for that.
Multiple new Congressmen? How many have we gained, versus how many are the same, and how many have lost?
Losing Paul, keeping Amash and Rand, gaining Bentivolio, Massie, Stockman, Yoho, Ted Cruz, among many others who may not be 5-star liberty candidates but are with us on many issues.
As for Republicans coming out against the PATRIOT Act and NDAA, I don't know many of those.
The Tea Party has always been very suspicious of those types of things. Look at Markwayne Mullin in Oklahoma. Pretty run-of-the-mill Tea Party guy, just came out strongly against the PATRIOT Act. A number of Republicans in Congress tried to block the extension of the PATRIOT Act the last time around.
As for, "...that a libertarian is now positioned to be a serious player with a legitimate chance to win in 2016?"
Who is that? Romney if he wins in 2012, and runs again in 2016? Didn't realize he was considered a libertarian.
Don't worry, Romney is not going to win. The libertarian I was referring to was a certain Senator from Kentucky you may have heard of. He is becoming a wildly popular figure among the Republican base, far beyond the people his dad was able to reach.
BlackTerrel
10-11-2012, 08:58 PM
The evidence points to the opposite, and the evidence are the number of good old republicans that are starting to understand that foreign aid may not be a good thing.
This. Rand is doing really well. I keep liking him more and more. And I don't think I'm the only one - he's positioning himself very well.
Matt Collins
10-11-2012, 09:12 PM
Honestly? With the amount of money spent? $40 million out of how many BILLION of political dollars spent this cycle?! We haven't spent much, but we've gotten a lot of bang for our buck.
Matt Collins
10-11-2012, 09:13 PM
Besides the fact that multiple new congressmen will be elected on a liberty platform, that auditing the Fed is now essentially mandatory for all Republicans to support, that people are even TALKING about the Federal Reserve, that Laura Ingraham can essentially advocate non-interventionism with Senator Rand Paul on her show, that some mainstream Republicans now want a gold standard, that more and more Republicans are coming out against the PATRIOT Act, against the NDAA, and against the TSA, and that a libertarian is now positioned to be a serious player with a legitimate chance to win in 2016?
Yeah besides that, no progress.Just ignore CWG, he is just here to be subversive and lower morale apparently by attempting to spread FUD within the liberty movement. Either that or he is the most blind close-minded person around; or both
coffeewithgames
10-11-2012, 10:10 PM
Just ignore CWG, he is just here to be subversive and lower morale apparently by attempting to spread FUD within the liberty movement. Either that or he is the most blind close-minded person around; or both
Have you stopped eating yet Collins? Where is that Mitt Romney only TV attack ad? You find it yet? I'm here for reality. For knowing the truth. Perhaps you live in a bubble? I don't.
You can't have a conversation/discussion about the REAL issues. I find it interesting that you can't discuss issues (probably because you haven't stopped eating yet? right?), and anything you disagree with (can't answer) is "subversive".
Just for clarification. It was only $40+ million this time, $60+ million between JUST the two campaigns, not counting C4L funds, etc.
Jumbo Shrimp
10-11-2012, 10:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PR_cGJyRbY
Feeding the Abscess
10-11-2012, 10:59 PM
Besides the fact that multiple new congressmen will be elected on a liberty platform, that auditing the Fed is now essentially mandatory for all Republicans to support, that people are even TALKING about the Federal Reserve, that Laura Ingraham can essentially advocate non-interventionism with Senator Rand Paul on her show, that some mainstream Republicans now want a gold standard, that more and more Republicans are coming out against the PATRIOT Act, against the NDAA, and against the TSA, and that a libertarian is now positioned to be a serious player with a legitimate chance to win in 2016?
Yeah besides that, no progress.
Sean Hannity opposed Clinton's actions in Serbia.
Let that sink in, and hopefully you'll realize that Republican opposition to empire (to the extent that it exists) is simply anti-Obama posturing.
coffeewithgames
10-11-2012, 11:10 PM
Sean Hannity opposed Clinton's actions in Serbia.
Let that sink in, and hopefully you'll realize that Republican opposition to empire (to the extent that it exists) is simply anti-Obama posturing.
Exactly. They just change positions when in office, so it's more of the same. Every. Single. Time. And you have people that will swear Romney is different than Obama, and when asked on what specific points... crickets.
Exactly. They just change positions when in office, so it's more of the same. Every. Single. Time. And you have people that will swear Romney is different than Obama, and when asked on what specific points... crickets.Nevermind that Rand is criticizing Romney's foreign policy. Nevermind what politics is. Nevermind any tactical progress. Keep demanding the failed concept of purism.
Feeding the Abscess
10-11-2012, 11:19 PM
Nevermind that Rand is criticizing Romney's foreign policy. Nevermind what politics is. Nevermind any tactical progress. Keep demanding the failed concept of purism.
1964, 1980, 1994, and 2000.
coffeewithgames
10-11-2012, 11:25 PM
Nevermind that Rand is criticizing Romney's foreign policy. Nevermind what politics is. Nevermind any tactical progress. Keep demanding the failed concept of purism.
Politics is sound bytes. Not running on real issues. Keeping your points at a toddler's level. Maybe I should be waiting on Rand to contact Hannity, about a special announcement, and getting on the Fox News audience to talk about this, like he did to attack Newt in Iowa? Who is demanding purism?
Sean Hannity opposed Clinton's actions in Serbia.
Let that sink in, and hopefully you'll realize that Republican opposition to empire (to the extent that it exists) is simply anti-Obama posturing.
I don't disagree, but hopefully four more years of Obama will solidify that as a Republican plank, and open the door for Rand to be the nominee. Also, it's no secret that during the Bush years, Republican Congressmen just followed orders and voted like zombies. The more liberty Congressmen we elect, the more opposition there will be if there is a Republican president not named Rand Paul.
If you really think it is all hopeless, by all means retreat into your bunker and stockpile guns and food. Forgive me, though, for thinking there is a realistic way to advance our cause.
EBounding
10-12-2012, 11:09 AM
And if Rand isn't convincing Ron Paul supporters to vote for Romney, I predict the establishment will throw him under the bus on Nov. 7. He is being used, and sadly, not many here realize it.
Oh of course they'll throw Rand under the bus after the election. But grassroots conservatives won't and they'll see what the establishment is doing. A lot of the regular conservative Republicans do not trust the party leadership. They'll at least be open to listening to Rand the same way they listened during his Senate run.
LibertyEagle
10-12-2012, 11:43 AM
Sean Hannity opposed Clinton's actions in Serbia.
Let that sink in, and hopefully you'll realize that Republican opposition to empire (to the extent that it exists) is simply anti-Obama posturing.
True, but Rand was not talking about Obama. He was criticizing Romney's foreign policy and last time I checked, Romney was a Republican.
coffeewithgames
10-12-2012, 11:52 AM
True, but Rand was not talking about Obama. He was criticizing Romney's foreign policy and last time I checked, Romney was a Republican.
He was doing it on CNN though, not Fox News right? And it's not as critical of Romney, as he was of Newt, and he is still out campaigning FOR Romney.
Bruehound
10-12-2012, 01:57 PM
He was doing it on CNN though, not Fox News right? And it's not as critical of Romney, as he was of Newt, and he is still out campaigning FOR Romney.
i think Rand is out there campaigning for Rand. :D
cajuncocoa
10-12-2012, 02:08 PM
Oh of course they'll throw Rand under the bus after the election. But grassroots conservatives won't and they'll see what the establishment is doing. A lot of the regular conservative Republicans do not trust the party leadership. They'll at least be open to listening to Rand the same way they listened during his Senate run.But they DO trust Limbaugh and Hannity. Those 2 like Rand now, but how long will that continue if he keeps criticizing the GOP POTUS candidate?
Don't misunderstand...I'm GLAD he's taking Romney on over foreign policy. I just don't understand the timing.
i think Rand is out there campaigning for Rand. :D
Yes.
I just don't understand the timing.
Look, I love Rand as a politician. But why do politicians do anything? In politics there are only two relevant questions: 1) who benefits, and 2) how does it help said politician achieve more power for themselves. Period. Answer those 2 questions in any given scenario and you understand why everything happens in politics.
There is nothing to figure out.
;)
cajuncocoa
10-12-2012, 03:41 PM
Look, I love Rand as a politician. But why do politicians do anything? In politics there are only two relevant questions: 1) who benefits, and 2) how does it help said politician achieve more power for themselves. Period. Answer those 2 questions in any given scenario and you understand why everything happens in politics.
That's true. And I just happen to think he (Rand) would have more leverage with these comments after Romney loses. At that point, it won't cost Rand the good will of Romney supporters who are now just sitting back waiting to skewer Rand by whining that he cost Mittens the election (he didn't, but they'll grasp at anything).
This move pretty much counters any good thing Rand intended to do with the endorsement.
That's true. And I just happen to think he (Rand) would have more leverage with these comments after Romney loses. At that point, it won't cost Rand the good will of Romney supporters who are now just sitting back waiting to skewer Rand by whining that he cost Mittens the election (he didn't, but they'll grasp at anything).
This move pretty much counters any good thing Rand intended to do with the endorsement.
Maybe, maybe not. It's a gamble, for sure. I think it's a wait and see thing, personally. We don't know what the outcome of the election will be yet. It doesn't make much sense to speculate too much over Rand's political gambits at this point, until they have had a chance to fully play out. And certainly if you do think you've got it figured out, it is counterproductive and doesn't help Rand to broadcast it online. So I would say, just be patient and judge for yourself.
Galileo Galilei
10-13-2012, 02:02 AM
If Rand really believes this, he should stop campaigning for Romney immediately. Especially if Rand is concerned about interventionism and defense spending.
That would be basically an endorsement of Obama. Rand Paul does not support Obama.
Galileo Galilei
10-13-2012, 02:14 AM
If Rand really believes this, he should stop campaigning for Romney immediately. Especially if Rand is concerned about interventionism and defense spending.
Romney is giving Rand millions in free advertising for Rand's run in 2016. In exchange, Romney got a worthless intra-party endorsement. Sometimes ya gotta be smarter than the neocons.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.