Rand on Fox now, wants more aid to Israel and Ukraine???

[cindy25]

Ron never would have said help the Ukrainians defend themselves.


video update:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3697813990001/how-would-president-rand-paul-handle-current-world-issues/

[Brett85]

Unfortunately, we're probably going to have to put up with a lot of this kind of rhetoric for the next year or two. Hopefully if he wins the GOP nomination his rhetoric will be more non interventionist, but I think he just figures that he can't have the Hannity and Levin types opposed to him if he's going to have a real shot to win the GOP nomination.

[juleswin]

Why oh why did I click on this thread? I just threw up a little in my mouth right now

[cajuncocoa]

Unfortunately, we're probably going to have to put up with a lot of this kind of rhetoric for the next year or two. Hopefully if he wins the GOP nomination his rhetoric will be more non interventionist, but I think he just figures that he can't have the Hannity and Levin types opposed to him if he's going to have a real shot to win the GOP nomination.
Do you really think they'll stop when Rand wins the nomination? They only half-heartedly supported McCain and Romney; if they do the same thing to Rand, we're looking at 8 years of Hillary Clinton. So he's going to have to kiss their asses all the way through the general election.....and then he'll have to start thinking about re-election. If he pisses them off after 2016, he'll be looking at a one term presidency.

Where does this all end?

[Crashland]

Again, Rand has to choose his battles wisely. Saying that he doesn't support aid to Israel would be a battle not worth fighting.

[jjdoyle]

Again, Rand has to choose his battles wisely. Saying that he doesn't support aid to Israel would be a battle not worth fighting.

How about just saying he supports the Constitution? And he could re-iterate, "We're $17 trillion in debt, I suggest Senators and Congressmen forego our pay, and lead by example, and send our paychecks to the Israeli and Ukrainian governments." No? Ron Paul suggested that, when he voted against a congressional medal for somebody....

Anybody know what show this interview was done on?

[Brian4Liberty]

Tube or it didn't happen... ;)

[jjdoyle]

Tube or it didn't happen... ;)

Yeah, I was coming back to ask what show and time (is this Greta's time?), since I don't have cable. Context is key, especially on this, just like his Glenn Beck interview.

[Vanguard101]

Do you really think they'll stop when Rand wins the nomination? They only half-heartedly supported McCain and Romney; if they do the same thing to Rand, we're looking at 8 years of Hillary Clinton. So he's going to have to kiss their asses all the way through the general election.....and then he'll have to start thinking about re-election. If he pisses them off after 2016, he'll be looking at a one term presidency.

Where does this all end?
If he is president, Hannity will defend everything he does.

[lib3rtarian]

Unfortunately, we're probably going to have to put up with a lot of this kind of rhetoric for the next year or two. Hopefully if he wins the GOP nomination his rhetoric will be more non interventionist, but I think he just figures that he can't have the Hannity and Levin types opposed to him if he's going to have a real shot to win the GOP nomination.

I agree. Talking is one thing, dragging us off to war is another. He is as non-interventionist as they come, but he does have to flex his FP muscles every now and then, or they'd think he has no muscles.

[cindy25]

Hannity (but with guest host)

[specsaregood]

Tube or it didn't happen... ;)

Seeing as Randal is repeatedly on record as being against ALL foreign aid I'd be quite surprised if the OP's comment isn't 100% accurate.

[Brian4Liberty]

Seeing as Randal is repeatedly on record as being against ALL foreign aid I'd be quite surprised if the OP's comment isn't 100% accurate.

I was going by the title.


Rand on Fox now, wants more aid to Israel and Ukraine???

No big deal, we'll see the full context at some point.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

How would 'President Rand Paul' handle current world issues?
Jul. 25, 2014 - 5:02 - Will Kentucky senator run in 2016?

video here... http://video.foxnews.com/v/3697813990001/how-would-president-rand-paul-handle-current-world-issues/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fvideo+%28Internal+-+Video+-+Latest%29#sp=show-clips

[Crashland]

I'm sure this quote will be taken out of context lol

"On 9/11 we were attacked by short-range missiles posing as airplanes." --Rand Paul

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3697813990001/how-would-president-rand-paul-handle-current-world-issues/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fvideo+%28Internal+-+Video+-+Latest%29#sp=show-clips

2:20 mark for the Israel question, in which Rand affirms his support for increased funding for Israel's defense.

3:20 mark for the Ukraine question, in which Rand affirms his support for sending Ukraine weapons and monetary aid.

[nyc]

Smh

[KurtBoyer25L]

These are situations that concern friendly countries in crisis. Sending emergency military aid to someone under attack is not the same as keeping them on the payroll for centuries. We can all agree that propping up a dictator with tax dollars in exchange for oil rights or aggression against other countries is a bad idea. Emergency wartime aid is definitely a debatable issue, but a separate one.

[Chieppa1]

Emergency wartime aid to a regime in Ukraine that is only in power because of a CIA-backed coup that involved arming actual Nazis. All so NATO can have access to the natural gas pipelines of central and eastern Ukraine. What is going on?

GO DEMOCRACY!

[Brett85]

I don't like it at all, but I guess he's just trying to avoid the "isolationist" tag, or at least trying to make people who label him an isolationist look stupid.

[jurgs01]

Fight the NEOCONs Rand!

We all shouldn't underestimate the difficulty that navigating the den of lions to the presidency presents. That said, I would rather Rand go down swinging on the foreign aid issue than try and appease the NEOCONs.

He tried to avoid the foreign aid issue by saying that we should create a joint venture and "invest" in Iron Dome for our own use. It is obvious that he is fundamentally opposed to aid, but he is trying to walk a tightrope that is unnecessary. Just say "I am opposed to all foreign aid. Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself as they see fit." Winning answer without compromising principles.

[Carlybee]

Everytime someone says "Oh he's just playing the game" what it translates into is "He is lying for political gain". How stupid do you think people are?

[Crashland]

Everytime someone says "Oh he's just playing the game" what it translates into is "He is lying for political gain". How stupid do you think people are?

Very stupid, on average.

[CaptUSA]

Everytime someone says "Oh he's just playing the game" what it translates into is "He is lying for political gain". How stupid do you think people are?

http://lolbot.net/pix/22180.jpeg

[juleswin]

Everytime someone says "Oh he's just playing the game" what it translates into is "He is lying for political gain". How stupid do you think people are?

Obama did the same thing, lied about so many things and when he got into the office, did the opposite. Why cant we do the same thing? You don't exactly act like a saint when you are trying to win the mob election.

[Brett85]

Everytime someone says "Oh he's just playing the game" what it translates into is "He is lying for political gain". How stupid do you think people are?

Pretty stupid. They voted to elect President Obama twice.

[Brian4Liberty]

He tried to avoid the foreign aid issue by saying that we should create a joint venture and "invest" in Iron Dome for our own use. It is obvious that he is fundamentally opposed to aid, but he is trying to walk a tightrope that is unnecessary. Just say "I am opposed to all foreign aid. Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself as they see fit." Winning answer without compromising principles.

Yeah, that's what I heard. Bolling was pushing the questions, and Rand was turning it around into reasonable answers. He was talking about Iron Dome being a development project that the US could benefit from. I didn't hear Rand say anything about "more" or additional aid. Just some aid. Could be less aid than is going over there today. (Bolling is the one who said additional, not Rand.)

In the end, Bolling did get Rand to say that he supported aid to the Ukraine, but it wasn't Rand's first choice in answering the question. Of course the question is framed as "will you stand up to Putin"? "Standing up to Putin" is part of the neoconservatives Holy Trinity, alongside of "Israel first" and "crush Iran".

I would be more comfortable with a response of "we are broke, and I favor reductions in all foreign aid." And "the situation in Ukraine is a mess, and given the terrible disaster that occurred last week, sending weapons into the Ukraine is probably not the best option right now." Rand did talk about European partners helping with the situation, and those who keep up with events know that Germany and France had pushed for peace and a cease fire in Ukraine. The Obama Administration gave the Ukraine the ok to start bombing it's own people, which lead to the airline disaster. So working with Germany would be an improvement on this issue.

And my own commentary on the Ukraine is that it is the people of eastern Ukraine that are defending themselves from the Keiv government, not the other way around. Bombs are not falling on Kiev. Tanks and artillery are not attacking Kiev.

[tsai3904]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3697813990001/how-would-president-rand-paul-handle-current-world-issues/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fvideo+%28Internal+-+Video+-+Latest%29#sp=show-clips

2:20 mark for the Israel question, in which Rand affirms his support for increased funding for Israel's defense.

3:20 mark for the Ukraine question, in which Rand affirms his support for sending Ukraine weapons and monetary aid.

Not happy with these comments and it does seem like there's been a shift in his views. He's always been for sanctions and his support for Israel has been questionable but I can't think of another instance of Rand supporting sending aid or weapons to another country like he wants to do with Ukraine. People in Kentucky should absolutely call him out on these positions.

[KurtBoyer25L]

Emergency wartime aid to a regime in Ukraine that is only in power because of a CIA-backed coup that involved arming actual Nazis. All so NATO can have access to the natural gas pipelines of central and eastern Ukraine. What is going on?

GO DEMOCRACY!

Deal with the situation as it stands. If we're judging policy based on dastardly deeds of past generations, Congress should vote to abolish every state west of Georgia and give them back to the Indians.

[cajuncocoa]

Obama did the same thing, lied about so many things and when he got into the office, did the opposite. Why cant we do the same thing? You don't exactly act like a saint when you are trying to win the mob election.
How did that work out for everyone?

[heavenlyboy34]

Politicians gonna politik. Let me know when the revolution starts.

[mac_hine]

Rand is like an insecure teenager trying to gain favor with the "cool" kids by engaging in under age drinking (supporting sanctions) and smoking pot (supporting foreign aid). These are gateway drugs that'll only result in him getting into the harder stuff. (neoconservatism) :cool:

He's missing out on huge opportunity here. The country is slowly waking up to the ideas of noninterventionism. His farther got this ball rolling. It's time for him to drop this BS pragmatic posturing, show a little backbone, and stand up for what's right.

I don't see that happening though.

[RonPaulMall]

These are situations that concern friendly countries in crisis. Sending emergency military aid to someone under attack is not the same as keeping them on the payroll for centuries. We can all agree that propping up a dictator with tax dollars in exchange for oil rights or aggression against other countries is a bad idea. Emergency wartime aid is definitely a debatable issue, but a separate one.

Kiev are the ones attacking, not the ones being attacked. And their indiscriminate shelling of Eastern Ukraine has claimed nearly a thousand lives already. Ron would never betray his conscience like that just to suck up to the neocon crowd.

[phill4paul]

Politicians gonna politik. Let me know when the revolution starts.

This ^^^. With Rand I feel like he is "better than most." But that it not saying a whole lot.

[heavenlyboy34]

This ^^^. With Rand I feel like he is "better than most." But that it not saying a whole lot.

+rep

[specsaregood]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3697813990001/how-would-president-rand-paul-handle-current-world-issues/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fvideo+%28Internal+-+Video+-+Latest%29#sp=show-clips

2:20 mark for the Israel question, in which Rand affirms his support for increased funding for Israel's defense.

3:20 mark for the Ukraine question, in which Rand affirms his support for sending Ukraine weapons and monetary aid.

Uhm, I just listened to it.
@ the 2:20 mark. are you referring to the part where he says "uh yeah, I've seen the iron dome system firsthand" then later says he has proposed we might be able to have such a system in the US. Then at the end says it is a good idea to work together. I don't see that as him affirming increasing aid to them for the project.

@ the 3:20 mark that one is a big more disappointing. he says he has "been in favor of helping the Ukrainian people with arms or monetary support." I don't like that one bit; but its a bit nebulous. I'd like to hear specifically what he is in favor of because neither of those have been in his proposals he has made publically. If it just means selling them arms or monetary support meaning trade deals, that would be fine with me and still count as a factual statement.

In neither bit did he actually say he wants to give more aid to either country; but rather did his usual tightrope walking and obfuscation.

[jjdoyle]

Uhm, I just listened to it.
@ the 2:20 mark. are you referring to the part where he says "uh yeah, I've seen the iron dome system firsthand" then later says he has proposed we might be able to have such a system in the US. Then at the end says it is a good idea to work together. I don't see that as him affirming increasing aid to them for the project.

@ the 3:20 mark that one is a big more disappointing. he says he has "been in favor of helping the Ukrainian people with arms or monetary support." I don't like that one bit; but its a bit nebulous. I'd like to hear specifically what he is in favor of because neither of those have been in his proposals he has made publically. If it just means selling them arms or monetary support meaning trade deals, that would be fine with me and still count as a factual statement.

In neither bit did he actually say he wants to give more aid to either country; but rather did his usual tightrope walking and obfuscation.

He also said, "So yeah, I think it's a good joint effort." The current joint effort is us giving them a few hundred million dollars for it:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.578916

And this was the most recent piece I saw on searching:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-23/senate-democrats-push-triple-israels-iron-dome-aid-576-million-0

[specsaregood]

He also said, "So yeah, I think it's a good joint effort." The current joint effort is us giving them a few hundred million dollars for it:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.578916

I have a hunch that the joint effort is more than just the money; such as technology sharing and implementation experience.



And this was the most recent piece I saw on searching:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-23/senate-democrats-push-triple-israels-iron-dome-aid-576-million-0
Wake me when Randal actually votes to give out foreign aid.

Like I said, I didn't like how it sounded but I've learned to just parse out exactly what he said and go with that; not what the interviewers say or what I think he meant by it. His answer to the question about the Ukraine was much more concerning to me as it doesn't exactly meld with his previously made proposals.

[Carlybee]

Obama did the same thing, lied about so many things and when he got into the office, did the opposite. Why cant we do the same thing? You don't exactly act like a saint when you are trying to win the mob election.

And that seems presidential how?

[jjdoyle]

I have a hunch that the joint effort is more than just the money; such as technology sharing and implementation experience.


Wake me when Randal actually votes to give out foreign aid.

Like I said, I didn't like how it sounded but I've learned to just parse out exactly what he said and go with that; not what the interviewers say or what I think he meant by it. His answer to the question about the Ukraine was much more concerning to me as it doesn't exactly meld with his previously made proposals.

Well, with words like this, why wouldn't he vote in favor of foreign aid to Israel? I'm guessing the vote will happen, as the second link was just recently on this subject and apparently being prepared for a vote.
I mean, if he's really just playing some game, voting in favor of a few more hundred million in aid, is to be expected. No?
This is what happens when you try to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering, instead of constitutional talking points.

He brought up 9/11 and planes being used as short ranged missiles as a reason for a U.S. Iron Dome, but I sure hope he justifies voting against any Israeli foreign aid with the same approach, and using 9/11 as the reason.

[jkob]

Rand is going to have to earn my vote, I'm not going to vote for him just because I support his dad. He seems to be doing everything possible to thumb his nose at us, he's sounding more and more like a neocon.

[anaconda]

I hate when those people in Baltimore launch their missiles on Washington, D.C.

[anaconda]

Rand is going to have to earn my vote, I'm not going to vote for him just because I support his dad. He seems to be doing everything possible to thumb his nose at us, he's sounding more and more like a neocon.

Rand used the "iron dome" thing to plant the seed of a defensive military strategy in the U.S. as opposed to a interventionist strategy. And seemed to suggest that we could benefit by the Israelis sharing their "iron dome" technology with us. Brilliant, in my opinion.

[Natural Citizen]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by KurtBoyer25Lhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=5599523#post5599523)

These are situations that concern friendly countries in crisis. Sending emergency military aid to someone under attack is not the same as keeping them on the payroll for centuries. We can all agree that propping up a dictator with tax dollars in exchange for oil rights or aggression against other countries is a bad idea. Emergency wartime aid is definitely a debatable issue, but a separate one.



Kiev are the ones attacking, not the ones being attacked. And their indiscriminate shelling of Eastern Ukraine has claimed nearly a thousand lives already. Ron would never betray his conscience like that just to suck up to the neocon crowd.



For reference... 'Slaughterhouse': Civilians die in Kiev's ruthless military attacks (GRAPHIC) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?452897-Slaughterhouse-Civilians-die-in-Kiev-s-ruthless-military-attacks-(GRAPHIC))

Aside - Kiev's bloody eastern Ukraine campaign LIVE UPDATES (http://rt.com/news/eastern-ukraine-army-operation-680/)

In addition - Israel steps up operation in Gaza LIVE UPDATES (http://rt.com/news/171320-gaza-hamas-israel-rockets/)

[civusamericanus]

After being an active organizer in the last two elections in support of Ron Paul, it is clear it will take any means necessary to win the presidency.

If Ron Paul was my dad and I had to live through a lifetime of politicians and media blacking out my father, I would do whatever it took to win and make sure to honor my father after I won.

[phill4paul]

Rand used the "iron dome" thing to plant the seed of a defensive military strategy in the U.S. as opposed to a interventionist strategy. And seemed to suggest that we could benefit by the Israelis sharing their "iron dome" technology with us. Brilliant, in my opinion.

http://www.fivecentsplease.org/5cp-logo.png

[Chieppa1]

Deal with the situation as it stands. If we're judging policy based on dastardly deeds of past generations, Congress should vote to abolish every state west of Georgia and give them back to the Indians.

This all happened in January....

And what is libertarian or Constitutional about any of that?

[satchelmcqueen]

im still holding my breath.

[Crashland]

Rand is going to have to earn my vote, I'm not going to vote for him just because I support his dad. He seems to be doing everything possible to thumb his nose at us, he's sounding more and more like a neocon.

As long as you keep in mind that if you cast your vote for a candidate who cannot win, or if you abstain from voting, in actuality your vote isn't really going to the person you voted for, it's going to someone else.

[cajuncocoa]

As long as you keep in mind that if you cast your vote for a candidate who cannot win, or if you abstain from voting, in actuality your vote isn't really going to the person you voted for, it's going to someone else.
That argument gets old after awhile. It's the same old scare tactics...give it up. Yes, candidates must earn votes. If the candidate* sucks, what difference does it make whether your vote goes to "somebody else".

*This is not to say Rand sucks. It's a general argument to anyone who tries to talk someone out of voting 3rd party or from abstaining from voting.

[Crashland]

That argument gets old after awhile. It's the same old scare tactics...give it up. Yes, candidates must earn votes. If the candidate* sucks, what difference does it make whether your vote goes to "somebody else".

*This is not to say Rand sucks. It's a general argument to anyone who tries to talk someone out of voting 3rd party or from abstaining from voting.

It's not scare tactics, it's realism. A vote for a 3rd party candidate or a candidate who cannot win is essentially a protest vote. When I say your vote goes to someone else, I don't only mean it in the sense of the immediate election. Part of it helps build legitimacy for someone else's future run, although the effect is greatly diminished. It makes me wonder what all those Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 votes were for. Want to vote for some 3rd party in 2016 so that maybe someone else in 2020, 2024, 2028 can have slightly more of a chance?

[cajuncocoa]

It's not scare tactics, it's realism. A vote for a 3rd party candidate or a candidate who cannot win is essentially a protest vote. When I say your vote goes to someone else, I don't only mean it in the sense of the immediate election. Part of it helps build legitimacy for someone else's future run, although the effect is greatly diminished. It makes me wonder what all those Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 votes were for. Want to vote for some 3rd party in 2016 so that maybe someone else in 2020, 2024, 2028 can have slightly more of a chance?As of right now, my 2016 vote will go to Rand Paul, assuming he stays the course on issues and wins the GOP nomination. If he doesn't, yeah, I probably would either vote 3rd party or stay home. And no matter how you spin it, my vote is for the person whose name is next to the button I push behind the curtain. No one else.

[Crashland]

As of right now, my 2016 vote will go to Rand Paul, assuming he stays the course on issues and wins the GOP nomination. If he doesn't, yeah, I probably would either vote 3rd party or stay home. And no matter how you spin it, my vote is for the person whose name is next to the button I push behind the curtain. No one else.

That would be true if the election consisted of a long series of single-elimination runoffs where the candidate with the least votes is removed from the next vote. Because elections are not structured like this, votes for candidates that have fewer total votes cause direct effects on the outcome of the election for candidates that are not the one you voted for.

[orenbus]

Can anyone explain to me why sending arms and money to Ukraine is in the United States best interest? I mean lets say even if Rand is pandering to some in the Republican party what is the logic behind supporting Ukraine or going against the rebels, why do we even care?

On the Iron Dome thing though I agree with Rand, we have been and should be looking into and funding those technologies for future national security although I start to get concerned when we are funding directly the applications of those systems in Israel for obvious world politic implications.

[orenbus]

Here is the interview on Youtube in case anyone was looking;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDk3ef3D4wY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw1sDMPS-9Q

[Crashland]

Can anyone explain to me why sending arms and money to Ukraine is in the United States best interest? I mean lets say even if Rand is pandering to some in the Republican party what is the logic behind supporting Ukraine or going against the rebels, why do we even care?

On the Iron Dome thing though I agree with Rand, we have been and should be looking into and funding those technologies for future national security although I start to get concerned when we are funding directly the applications of those systems in Israel for obvious world politic implications.

I can't think of any reason why we should send anything to Ukraine other than maybe diplomats to help negotiate a peace agreement if they wanted our help with that. Rand was pretty much wrong on that one, but I question his sincerity on that answer. A better response might have been saying that he would "consider" sending aid without really coming out in support of it. Kind of like he says he would "consider" airstrikes in Iraq "if it makes sense" lol

[cajuncocoa]

That would be true if the election consisted of a long series of single-elimination runoffs where the candidate with the least votes is removed from the next vote. Because elections are not structured like this, votes for candidates that have fewer total votes cause direct effects on the outcome of the election for candidates that are not the one you voted for.
It's true in all cases, because it's my vote and I will do with it what I choose to do. If people are worried that it will eventually lead to worse candidates down the road, perhaps the better option would be to promote quality candidates that can earn my vote now.

[Brett85]

I don't think it helps Rand politically to water down the non interventionist foreign policy message to such an extent. Our message is becoming more popular with the American people every day. If I were an advisor to Rand, I would advise him to stand strong on the Constitutional/non interventionist foreign policy message. Of course, I'll never be in that position, and maybe Rand and his advisors are smarter than I am. I don't know.

[Crashland]

It's true in all cases, because it's my vote and I will do with it what I choose to do. If people are worried that it will eventually lead to worse candidates down the road, perhaps the better option would be to promote quality candidates that can earn my vote now.

It is your vote. But it would be naive to think that your vote does not negatively influence the outcome of the election when the people who share your views the least are unified, and you split the vote with the people who share your views the most.

[anaconda]

http://www.fivecentsplease.org/5cp-logo.png

Well, here's what I heard Rand say in the interview:

"I've seen the iron dome system first hand...I've seen the video response where you see the missiles being blocked and cities saved from these missiles so, yeah, I think it's a good joint effort. In fact, I've gone a step farther. I think the iron dome might be usable within the United States and that we should continue to develop missile defense systems - they say this is more for short range missiles - but essentially on 9-11 we were attacked with short range missiles posing as airplanes. So, I think there probably is a need for some kind of defense for our cities in that working in conjunction with Israel on iron dome is a good idea."

1) I have not heard any other American politician advocating on national T.V. for developing missile defense systems for local domestic deployment. 2) I have not heard any other American politician say that Israel could help us with the local defense of our borders. Some potential translations of these statements are 1) Israel's defense technology is so effective that they don't need our foreign aid 2) Israel's defense technology is so effective that the U.S. could similarly utilize it locally. 3) The U.S. defense is not as strong as it could be because we have not invested our resources correctly, i.e. we've been invading other nations instead of securing our borders.

[acptulsa]

If he pisses them off after 2016, he'll be looking at a one term presidency.

Where does this all end?

I don't think he'll care about pissing them off any more after he's elected. I think if he does the hard, fast work to get the economy moving like days of yore, and once the powers that be try to punish us by deliberately trashing the economy again, crap like this will fall right off the radar. Either he and we get the economy going by 2020 or he doesn't get reelected. I don't see a third choice (unless it's the Second Coming).

I don't see RINO Blatherradio continuing to be of any consequence for very much longer.


I mean, if he's really just playing some game, voting in favor of a few more hundred million in aid, is to be expected. No?
This is what happens when you try to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering, instead of constitutional talking points.

If he's really just playing the game, why is he saying nothing other than he'd like us to work with them on the Iron Dome, presumably so we can buy the technology with our contributions to the project? A proposal to which I personally have exactly zero personal, technical and moral objections.

And what happens when Obama tries to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering is he says that crap during the election then serves only the corporate interests as usual once in office. If Rand Paul cares to reverse that process, he will make himself a hero to the republic. If you will recall, his father's constitutional talking points got drowned out in quixotic, isolationist kooky uncle screaming on the part of the masters of the mainstream media and no one but us heard them. Obviously that was good enough for you, to hear someone making sense in the debates while we chugged right on down the line toward an eighteen billion dollar debt, further erosions of our privacy and liberty, the unprecedented situation of we, the people being forced to purchase products from insurance conglomerates just to legally breathe the air of this nation, and the value of the dollar down to three Indian head pennies.

Well, guess what? That's not good enough for me. To be quite frank, I don't give a flying fuck if your ass is properly kissed, or if your panties are in a bunch instead. I want to sneak him into office, and see what he does with it.

Maybe my faith is misplaced, and maybe it isn't. But I have no faith in a single one of the other candidates, and I know for a fact that I'm right about that. I love my country too much not to take a chance on Rand, and I desperately want him to lie to me about his true intentions just as often as he has to to avoid repeating his father's fate.

And if you don't like it, well, um, gee, that's a crying shame, there, Doyle. I'll see if I can't figure out how to cry you a freaking river of crocodile tears.

Oh, and the news that you're severely miffed at whatever it was that Rand Paul said today is about as earth-shattering as the news that the news media is reporting AIPAC's theory that Jascha Heifetz' hangnail was caused by Hamas as fact. Just in case you were suffering any delusions that you've become the least bit unpredictable.

[jjdoyle]

If he's really just playing the game, why is he saying nothing other than he'd like us to work with them on the Iron Dome, presumably so we can buy the technology with our contributions to the project? A proposal to which I personally have exactly zero personal, technical and moral objections.

He did say he was in favor of aid to the Ukraine as well, and he said the Iron Dome was a good joint effort. Not really sure how it's joint, other than the U.S. paying for Israel's defense systems in the tune of nearly half-a-billion dollars.

"Funding for the production and deployment of these additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles was approved by the United States Congress, after being requested by President Obama in 2010.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#cite_note-Adam2010-29) In May 2010, theWhite House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House) announced that U.S. President Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Congress) in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries."

and...

"On 17 May 2012, when Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak) met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Panetta), the Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon) issued a statement from the Secretary saying in part, "I was pleased to inform Minister Barak that the President supports Israel's Iron Dome system and directed me to fill the $70 million in assistance for Iron Dome that Minister Barak indicated to me Israel needs this fiscal year."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#cite_note-37)On 18 May 2012, the United States House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) passed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, with $680 million for Iron Dome in Section 227. The report accompanying the bill, 112–479, also calls for technology sharing as well as co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in light of the nearly $900 million invested in the system since 2011.

SECTION 227, IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron Dome system in fiscal years 2012–15 in PE 63913C for procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation on this program. The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0 million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes, subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.–Israeli missile defense cooperation on the Arrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)) and David's Sling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Sling) suite of systems. The committee also believes that the Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#cite_note-38)
On 4 June 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Armed_Services_Committee) included $210 million for Iron Dome, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, S.3254. The bill has been reported out of committee and is waiting to be assigned a date for consideration by the full Senate.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#cite_note-39)

SEC. 237, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, said that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 201 for research, development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide, and available for the Missile Defense Agency, $210,000,000 may be provided to the Government of Israel for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program as specified in the funding table in section 4201.
On January 17, 2014, President Barack Obama signed the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The bill provides $235 million for Israel to procure the Iron Dome system.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#cite_note-40) The Israeli government has also agreed to spend more than half the funds the United States provides for the Iron Dome system in the United States. Funds going to U.S. contractors will increase to 30 percent in 2014 and 55 percent in 2015 from 3 percent previously, according to a U.S. Missile Defense Agency report to Congress.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#cite_note-41)"

Source for full context and reading if you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#Funding

If you don't have a problem with the U.S. helping pay for Israel's national defense, I don't know how that is considering we are $17+ trillion in debt. Just because there might be some shared technology, doesn't mean we are paying for our own Iron Dome. That would then come at MORE expense to the American taxpayers. Instead of paying Israel more than half-a-billion, they could have used that here. Instead, it's the typical Military Industrial Complex's tentacles in everything.


And what happens when Obama tries to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering is he says that crap during the election then serves only the corporate interests as usual once in office.

I honestly didn't know that we looked at President Obama's broken promises to his voters, as a good thing? But your next point I guess you were trying to make about someone possibly lying and/or giving out false promises to win....


If Rand Paul cares to reverse that process, he will make himself a hero to the republic.

I didn't vote for Ron Paul in 2008, thinking he would be very effective as President, outside of one big area, and another smaller one. I did vote for Ron Paul in 2008 thinking that if he won, he might set the record for most vetoes ever by a President. And that was A-okay with me. I thought it would have been awesome to see him vetoing nearly every single bill Congress sent to his desk.


If you will recall, his father's constitutional talking points got drowned out in quixotic, isolationist kooky uncle screaming on the part of the masters of the mainstream media and no one but us heard them. Obviously that was good enough for you, to hear someone making sense in the debates while we chugged right on down the line toward an eighteen billon dollar debt, further erosions of our privacy and liberty, the unprecedented situation of we, the people being forced to purchase products from insurance conglomerates just to legally breathe the air of this nation, and the value of the dollar down to three Indian head pennies.

Ron Paul didn't use "talking points" in the debates. Which is exactly what some of us wanted. He had the record to back them up, and many of us then suggested a speech coach to help tailor his message in debates, and prepare him for them, around his record in a good way for the idiot GOP voters to understand. It's the same thing I'm saying now about Rand, he could be saying certain things in a way that reaches the GOP base, without appearing to be appealing to neocons. He would actually be making any Republican that doesn't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy, look like Hillary Clinton.


Well, guess what? That's not good enough for me. To be quite frank, I don't give a flying fuck if your ass is properly kissed, or if your panties are in a bunch instead. I want to sneak him into office, and see what he does with it.

Maybe my faith is misplaced, and maybe it isn't. But I have no faith in a single one of the other candidates, and I know for a fact that I'm right about that. I love my country too much not to take a chance on Rand, and I desperately want him to lie to me about his true intentions just as often as he has to to avoid repeating his father's fate.

Again, talking points. If he's simply trying to reach the GOP base on foreign policy, there's a very good way to talk about foreign policy, and it would frame the debate now going into the 2016 election if Hillary runs on the Democrat side (it looks like she will be).

And if Rand/Ron are the same, I would expect the same from Rand in the veto department, but I have no idea if that would happen. Rand isn't Ron, and is doing some things differently, and some still the same.


And if you don't like it, well, um, gee, that's a crying shame, there, Doyle. I'll see if I can't figure out how to cry you a freaking river of crocodile tears.

Oh, and the news that you're severely miffed at whatever it was that Rand Paul said today is about as earth-shattering as the news that the news media is reporting AIPAC's theory that Jascha Heifetz' hangnail was caused by Hamas as fact. Just in case you were suffering any delusions that you've become the least bit unpredictable.

If you can cry crocodile tears, please let me know. We might be able to make a video titled, "How Jennifer Rubin feels about Rand Paul" and just show you crying in it. And last I checked, basing opinions on facts, aren't delusions. But nice try at an ad hominem.

[cajuncocoa]

It is your vote. But it would be naive to think that your vote does not negatively influence the outcome of the election when the people who share your views the least are unified, and you split the vote with the people who share your views the most.
When the people who share my views stop compromising and nominate a candidate who also shares my view, that candidate will have my vote.

[Crashland]

When the people who share my views stop compromising and nominate a candidate who also shares my view, that candidate will have my vote.

Divide the electorate in half - those who are closer to your views and those who are further from your views. Whichever half compromises *less* among their group loses the election. You seem determined to make your half the half that compromises less.

[cajuncocoa]

Divide the electorate in half - those who are closer to your views and those who are further from your views. Whichever half compromises *less* among their group loses the election. You seem determined to make your half the half that compromises less.
Do what you want with your vote, and I'll do what I want with mine. That's how it works.

BTW, is that you, Matt?

[cindy25]

Israel is no longer universally popular, and as thing get worse in Gaza, as CNN shows more dead babies, there will be no political upside to supporting them. as far as Ukraine, no one cares about them now. Israel will still be supported by the social cons, but they will vote for Huck anyway in Iowa, and in the general abortion trumps Israel, so no risk of them voting Dem.

and Rand should be a 1 term president, end this constant campaigning and fund raising. I would like to see it as a promise.

[Working Poor]

Pretty stupid. They voted to elect President Obama twice.

Even more stupid that Bush jr was elected twice.

[Crashland]

Do what you want with your vote, and I'll do what I want with mine. That's how it works.

BTW, is that you, Matt?

Do what you want with your vote, bit failure to compromise with those who are most like minded is the reason we lose elections, or keep getting our 40000th choice instead of our 2nd choice.. Its your vote and you are perfectly free to do that, but don't pretend that you are oblivious to this effect.

[Brett85]

Even more stupid that Bush jr was elected twice.

I guess there really hasn't been much of a choice in any of these elections. As bad as Bush was, I don't see how Gore or Kerry would've been any better.

[cajuncocoa]

Do what you want with your vote, bit failure to compromise with those who are most like minded is the reason we lose elections, or keep getting our 40000th choice instead of our 2nd choice.. Its your vote and you are perfectly free to do that, but don't pretend that you are oblivious to this effect.
Who is "we", and what makes you think I have a 2nd choice?

In 2008, and again in 2012, Ron was my only choice among Republican candidates. I was able to vote for Ron in the 2008 general election because a 3rd party put him on the Louisiana ballot (maybe you think I should have voted for John McCain) and in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, seeing no real difference between Obama and Romney. If Rand doesn't get the GOP nod in 2016, I can tell you right now that I will vote LP if I vote at all. I don't have a 2nd choice among GOP candidates.

[Crashland]

Who is "we", and what makes you think I have a 2nd choice?

In 2008, and again in 2012, Ron was my only choice among Republican candidates. I was able to vote for Ron in the 2008 general election because a 3rd party put him on the Louisiana ballot (maybe you think I should have voted for John McCain) and in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, seeing no real difference between Obama and Romney. If Rand doesn't get the GOP nod in 2016, I can tell you right now that I will vote LP if I vote at all. I don't have a 2nd choice among GOP candidates.

"We" are the half or third of voters who are closest to your own position.

If you view all other candidates the same then that makes sense. I disagree with the premise though - all other candidates are not the same and some are clearly better than others. If it's going to be "If someone else wins it doesn't matter which one it is because they're all the same anyway", I just don't see that as being the case. Especially when you are suggesting that Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton are so close to the "there is no difference between the two" category that you are barely decided for Rand.

[bunklocoempire]

Sort of reminds me of:
Matt 10:16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves..."

My family and friends will tell you I'm the nicest most peaceful guy you could ever want to meet, they will also tell you that I'm pretty scary until you get to know me. (I don't see it ;)) Not everyone appreciates or respects nice, meek, and peaceful -for those people only some sort of show will do. For example my problem neighbors only respect (barely) a show of crazy/force.

I absolutely loathe putting on the "crazy show" but I gotta do it sometimes -and I can do it without losing my soul or leading my idiot neighbors astray. I first presented the truth to my neighbors and it had no immediate effect on them. Now they get the "crazy show", but I am always willing to meet them on the high ground should they ever come around. Until then...

When the U.S. population stops demanding infotainment drama, and the MSM stops pushing it, perhaps then it will be time to stop playing to emotion entirely.

Until that time... Kabuki-ty buki-ty!

http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y442/bunklocoempirehi/kubukigiphy_zpsaad3f94a.gif

[cindy25]

I guess there really hasn't been much of a choice in any of these elections. As bad as Bush was, I don't see how Gore or Kerry would've been any better.

Kerry, no, just the same. McCain would have been worse. but Gore was against the patriot act, and I doubt if he would have invaded Iraq.

[Brett85]

Kerry, no, just the same. McCain would have been worse. but Gore was against the patriot act, and I doubt if he would have invaded Iraq.

He probably would've done a 180 on the issue of government surveillance like Obama did when he became President.

[Dianne]

Rand needs to understand he is being set up. He doesn't have to comment on everything or anything happening when they ask him a question. Until he figures out, the news media is out to destroy him ................. as they did his Dad ... he just needs to stand silent on certain issues. Frankly Rand should never comment on these issues, because he is not privy to all the facts surrounding these issues.

He is embarrassing me, if he continues on this course; because he is making conjecture without all the facts. What facts is he relying on? Fox News, MSNBC? The Congress critters know just about as much on these issues as you and I do.

[TheTexan]

mod delete

Meh. I think this Rand Paul thing is foolish on so many levels I don't care to list the reasons here, but I understand why people have to try it anyway. I hope it works out. I hope Rand Paul secretly holds his father's views. I hope that TPTB allow him to get elected despite his semi-secret views that go against everything they stand for. I hope that if he gets elected he will be able to reveal and implement true non-interventionist views without getting impeached.

I don't think it will get that far though. If I were a betting man (and I am), I would bet that any support that Rand Paul may have from outside our small group of misfits, will quickly fall apart as soon as the real voting starts. I hope I'm wrong.

[TheTexan]

Divide the electorate in half - those who are closer to your views and those who are further from your views. Whichever half compromises *less* among their group loses the election. You seem determined to make your half the half that compromises less.

What youre describing is a broken system. Play by that strategy, you may be able to win empty victories in the realm of politics, but you certainly wont make any progress toward real freedom doing that.

[kcchiefs6465]

Well that definitely was full of fail.

[Crashland]

What youre describing is a broken system. Play by that strategy, you may be able to win empty victories in the realm of politics, but you certainly wont make any progress toward real freedom doing that.

Progress happens outside the ballot box when you turn your nonviable candidates into viable candidates by turning the public opinion. Progress does not happen in the ballot box when you vote for candidates who can not win.

I think voting for your favorite candidate is an incorrect goal. The greater purpose of voting is to influence the outcome of the election. Those are two different things if your favored candidate cannot win in any foreseeable circumstance. This concept may not apply if there is only one candidate who can win under any reasonable circumstance, or if you have no preference at all among the candidates who can win.

[jjdoyle]

Progress happens outside the ballot box when you turn your nonviable candidates into viable candidates by turning the public opinion. Progress does not happen in the ballot box when you vote for candidates who can not win.

So, when you have a candidate going against the majority of public opinion, or not using words that would turn the public opinion in their favor, what would you call that?
And voting for candidates that can win, you know what that gets you?
Apparently $17+ trillion worth of national debt.

[kcchiefs6465]

Progress happens outside the ballot box when you turn your nonviable candidates into viable candidates by turning the public opinion. Progress does not happen in the ballot box when you vote for candidates who can not win.
Rand Paul has a great opportunity to change public opinion. At the least he could challenge it. And I'll give it to you that he has but regardless his statements regarding quite a bit relating to foreign policy have been peculiar at best.

I am afraid Scott Horton was right. It wouldn't be a good thing for Rand Paul to debate anyone knowledgeable in US foreign policy. He would get smoked. And I'm not saying that to be negative but he isn't coming from a position of principled fact, he is attempting to play their game. People serious about the topic are just shaking their head and the people who take theirs cues from whatever media source they do can tell something is not quite there.

[cajuncocoa]

"We" are the half or third of voters who are closest to your own position.

If you view all other candidates the same then that makes sense. I disagree with the premise though - all other candidates are not the same and some are clearly better than others. If it's going to be "If someone else wins it doesn't matter which one it is because they're all the same anyway", I just don't see that as being the case. Especially when you are suggesting that Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton are so close to the "there is no difference between the two" category that you are barely decided for Rand.
I said no such thing. I made it as clear as I possibly could that I wasn't including Rand in this. In fact, I clearly said that I would vote 3rd party or stay home IF Rand didn't win the GOP nomination. (see below)


Who is "we", and what makes you think I have a 2nd choice?

In 2008, and again in 2012, Ron was my only choice among Republican candidates. I was able to vote for Ron in the 2008 general election because a 3rd party put him on the Louisiana ballot (maybe you think I should have voted for John McCain) and in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, seeing no real difference between Obama and Romney. If Rand doesn't get the GOP nod in 2016, I can tell you right now that I will vote LP if I vote at all. I don't have a 2nd choice among GOP candidates.




As for your first sentence, I don't vote for half of some collective of voters. I vote for me.

[Crashland]

So, when you have a candidate going against the majority of public opinion, or not using words that would turn the public opinion in their favor, what would you call that?
And voting for candidates that can win, you know what that gets you?
Apparently $17+ trillion worth of national debt.

No matter how you vote, if none of the fiscally sound candidates are capable of winning then you will get $17 trillion either way. So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others.

I think the issue here is that knowing your candidate will not win, do you care which of the actually contending candidates does win? If your answer is no then what you are both saying is logically consistent, but we disagree about that premise.




I said no such thing. I made it as clear as I possibly could that I wasn't including Rand in this. In fact, I clearly said that I would vote 3rd party or stay home IF Rand didn't win the GOP nomination. (see below)

Sorry, my bad, that was not you. I was thinking back to jkob's post which I initially responded to which triggered your criticism. That original post was more about being on the edge of supporting Rand.

[jjdoyle]

No matter how you vote, if none of the fiscally sound candidates are capable of winning then you will get $17 trillion either way. So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others.

I think the issue here is that knowing your candidate will not win, do you care which of the actually contending candidates does win? If your answer is no then what you are both saying is logically consistent, but we disagree about that premise.

Well, at this point in history, that would be NEITHER the Republicans or Democrats. It seems now both are for spending BILLIONS overseas. A certain 2008 presidential candidate basically said the Democrats probably wouldn't be as bad, because at least they would be trying to spend the money at home. Now though, we have them both spending it overseas, at ridiculous rates.

But for example, if Hillary is running on fixing ObamaCare, and a Republican is running on defending Israel and getting rid of ObamaCare, by your, "So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others." I would have to say voting for Hillary would make more sense in that example, because she is allocating money here in the U.S. Not that I believe funding will ever stop, but just the Democrats tend to run more on spending/keeping money at home though their results are horrid, while the Republicans have been running on 9/11 and military spending since 2001.

[Shalom]

Rand used the "iron dome" thing to plant the seed of a defensive military strategy in the U.S. as opposed to a interventionist strategy. And seemed to suggest that we could benefit by the Israelis sharing their "iron dome" technology with us. Brilliant, in my opinion.

And what makes iron dome defensive? The purpose of anti-missile defenses is to allow a country or a military power to engage in unlimited acts of aggression without any fear of effective retaliation. Israel is engaging in a massive bombing campaign because there is no arab deterrent. Iron dome has probably saved some Israeli lives, but it is also killing Palestinian children. Under a regime of mutual assured destruction, those children would live to adulthood and have children of their own.

Anti-missile defenses aimed at Russia are no different. The purpose of American anti-missile defense is to enable a nuclear first strike against the people of Russia. The idea is that, if you destroy all of the Russian missiles, they can't retaliate, and you can survive a nuclear war. Of course, the Russians are not suicidal, so they will respond to our missile defenses by improving upon and increasing their offensive missiles so that an American first strike does not happen. In this way, the cold war nuclear arms race will be revived.

[Crashland]

And what makes iron dome defensive? The purpose of anti-missile defenses is to allow a country or a military power to engage in unlimited acts of aggression without any fear of effective retaliation. Israel is engaging in a massive bombing campaign because there is no arab deterrent. Iron dome has probably saved some Israeli lives, but it is also killing Palestinian children. Under a regime of mutual assured destruction, those children would live to adulthood and have children of their own.

Anti-missile defenses aimed at Russia are no different. The purpose of American anti-missile defense is to enable a nuclear first strike against the people of Russia. The idea is that, if you destroy all of the Russian missiles, they can't retaliate, and you can survive a nuclear war. Of course, the Russians are not suicidal, so they will respond to our missile defenses by improving upon and increasing their offensive missiles so that an American first strike does not happen. In this way, the cold war nuclear arms race will be revived.

I don't really agree with that. Investing in defense is not really offense just because it would give you a strategic advantage if you were to go on offense. There is no such thing as a defense which doesn't do that. You can't have a defense that only works when someone else initiates the conflict.

[nayjevin]

2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting

[kcchiefs6465]

2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting
Two more years of bad foreign policy votes and rhetoric and you'll be surprised at the lack of support.

[dillo]

2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting

Yea but I dont think Rand can take on the establishment unless he has the grassroots support of at least a comparable level to that of Ron Pauls

[Anti Federalist]

Can anyone explain to me why sending arms and money to Ukraine is in the United States best interest? I mean lets say even if Rand is pandering to some in the Republican party what is the logic behind supporting Ukraine or going against the rebels, why do we even care?

On the Iron Dome thing though I agree with Rand, we have been and should be looking into and funding those technologies for future national security although I start to get concerned when we are funding directly the applications of those systems in Israel for obvious world politic implications.

Because Putin and Russia suck, ya damn commie surrender monkey.

Ewe Ess Ay!

Ewe Ess Ay!

Ewe Ess Ay!

[Feeding the Abscess]

Uhm, I just listened to it.
@ the 2:20 mark. are you referring to the part where he says "uh yeah, I've seen the iron dome system firsthand" then later says he has proposed we might be able to have such a system in the US. Then at the end says it is a good idea to work together. I don't see that as him affirming increasing aid to them for the project.

@ the 3:20 mark that one is a big more disappointing. he says he has "been in favor of helping the Ukrainian people with arms or monetary support." I don't like that one bit; but its a bit nebulous. I'd like to hear specifically what he is in favor of because neither of those have been in his proposals he has made publically. If it just means selling them arms or monetary support meaning trade deals, that would be fine with me and still count as a factual statement.

In neither bit did he actually say he wants to give more aid to either country; but rather did his usual tightrope walking and obfuscation.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/04/rand-paul-ive-never-proposed-cutting-off-aid-to-israel/

Relevant quote:


I voted just this week to give money—more money—to the Iron Dome, so don’t mischaracterize my position on Israel.”

His original interview was indeed an affirmation of Bolling's assertion that we increase aid to Israel. Friendly interviews are screened beforehand by staff, typically with lists of topics up for discussion as a heads up. Rand knew what Bolling was going to ask and what the question was about.

[idiom]

Rand has gone full Israel.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/04/rand-paul-argues-that-he-never-proposed-ending-foreign-aid-to-israel/


Omaha, Nebraska (CNN) – Sen. Rand Paul denied Monday that he had ever proposed legislation that would end foreign aid for Israel, despite the Kentucky Republican’s efforts to end all foreign aid.

“I haven’t really proposed that in the past,” Paul told reporters when asked if he still stood by his call to stop all foreign aid, given the unrest in Israel and Gaza.

Man.

Two years to go, wonder how much else he will feel the need to fold on. :/

[TheTexan]

Rand has gone full Israel.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/04/rand-paul-argues-that-he-never-proposed-ending-foreign-aid-to-israel/



Man.

Two years to go, wonder how much else he will feel the need to fold on. :/

Does it really matter at this point? For those who buy into the "surprise freedom" strategy (I dont), all that really matters is that he wins

[mad cow]

Rand has gone full Israel.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/04/rand-paul-argues-that-he-never-proposed-ending-foreign-aid-to-israel/





Man.

Two years to go, wonder how much else he will feel the need to fold on. :/

Does this mean that you won't vote for Rand Paul for President of New Zealand if he 'Folds' anymore?

Pity.

[cindy25]

now O'Reilly has picked up on the flip-flop. called Rand untruthful. Rand made a huge mistake. MSM hates him, and he was not ready.

O'Reilly is replayed in a couple of hours if anyone wants to watch the segment

[Natural Citizen]

now O'Reilly has picked up on the flip-flop. called Rand untruthful. Rand made a huge mistake. MSM hates him, and he was not ready.

O'Reilly is replayed in a couple of hours if anyone wants to watch the segment

He'd do well to separate himself from the mainstream media anyhow. What I mean by that are the opinion shows like this. They're going down. Why go down with them? He will you know...it's not too late.

[cindy25]

all media is good at this point, with you are prepared; and Rand was not prepared for Wolf Blitzer's questions. better to resolve these positions now, when only political nerds are watching.

Rand is still the best hope for 2016 by far, but he is naive. the MSM hates him. blacks won't vote Republican, and the religious right will back Huck. those are facts.

[Warlord]

all media is good at this point, with you are prepared; and Rand was not prepared for Wolf Blitzer's questions. better to resolve these positions now, when only political nerds are watching.

Rand is still the best hope for 2016 by far, but he is naive. the MSM hates him. blacks won't vote Republican, and the religious right will back Huck. those are facts.

The MSM does;t hate him.

[bolil]

I'd have to sit down with the man before I could make up my mind. I am okay with Rand being Machiavellian in the Machiavellian world of US politics, but I would like to know where his heart really is. Also, "Fight not with monsters, lest you become one, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." If its a show to get elected NOW there is no telling whether that show will by degrees become the man.