PDA

View Full Version : The Rand Paul debate society: Peter King, Lindsey Graham, John Bolton go on the attack




RonPaulFanInGA
02-09-2015, 11:20 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-rand-paul-debate-society


The anti-Paul contingent all say they aren’t worried his views on foreign policy are gaining ground with GOP voters. Since the Islamic State took over swaths of Iraq and Syria and began executing Western hostages, polls show Republicans have reverted to their Bush-era instinct towards aggressive counterterrorism abroad. One Pew poll last September conducted after ISIS’ rise found that 46% of Republicans believed the US did “too little” to solve global problems, up from just 18% who thought so a year earlier. More recent surveys show terrorism high atop GOP voters’ list of concerns.

The fear, rather, is that Paul could get the nomination despite his unconventional foreign policy views if the campaign, as it did in 2012, focuses largely on domestic affairs.

“Republicans are small government conservatives and so an ideological libertarian says a lot of things they agree with,” Bolton said. “The consequences if you don’t require the candidates to elaborate on their national security views [is that] somebody with a view that doesn’t reflect the vast majority of the party might slip by.”…

“Neither of these self appointed guardians of national security have any chance of even qualifying for one Republican primary debate,” [Paul spokesman Brian] Darling said. “It is outrageous that anybody in the media treats these two as credible. Especially, Rep. Peter King who opposes gun rights, embraces every aspect of big government and is considered one of the most liberal members of the House Republican caucus. These two should be ashamed of themselves for the mud slinging against a fellow Republican, because they are putting personal gain before the long term health of the Republican Party.”

jct74
02-10-2015, 11:33 AM
Meet the Anti-Rand-Paul Protest Candidates
The peculiar presidential campaigns of John Bolton, Peter King, and Lindsey Graham

Jesse Walker | Feb. 10, 2015 11:47 am

Why is John Bolton, the mustachioed uber-hawk who played the wacky neighbor on The Independents, thinking of running for president? What about Peter King, the New York congressman and lapsed IRA fan who thinks journalists should be prosecuted for reporting the Snowden leaks? Or Lindsey Graham, John McCain's understudy in the Senate? None of these people have a serious shot at the Republican nomination. So why run?

Benjy Sarlin of MSNBC suggests an explanation: They're there to block Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator and likely presidential candidate who doesn't share their passion for a muscular, handsome foreign policy. They might not be able to take the presidential prize themselves, but they hope they can keep it from Paul by keeping a spotlight on his views about global affairs.

When Sarlin called the candidates to confirm his suspicions, two out of three conceded that Paul was on their minds. King told Sarlin that it was Paul who "really generated my concern"—not a surprise, since King's been saying words to that effect since last July.

...

read more:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/10/meet-the-anti-rand-paul-protest-candidat

Brett85
02-10-2015, 11:53 AM
What does "neo isolationism" mean? I mean, I know what they claim that isolationism means, but where do they get the prefix "neo" from?

philipped
02-10-2015, 12:18 PM
What does "neo isolationism" mean? I mean, I know what they claim that isolationism means, but where do they get the prefix "neo" from?

I feel like it's just another way to leave the reader scratching their heads smh.

Tywysog Cymru
02-10-2015, 12:35 PM
What does "neo isolationism" mean? I mean, I know what they claim that isolationism means, but where do they get the prefix "neo" from?

I think it's supposed to be in contrast with the the old "isolationism" that was prevalent before WWII.

Brett85
02-10-2015, 12:58 PM
I think it's supposed to be in contrast with the the old "isolationism" that was prevalent before WWII.

What's the difference between the so called "old isolationism" and the "isolationism" they claim Rand supports?

Tywysog Cymru
02-10-2015, 04:21 PM
What's the difference between the so called "old isolationism" and the "isolationism" they claim Rand supports?

I think they mean that it was understandable to be an isolationist back then. But anyone who still thinks that now is completely ignorant because Hitler.

TheGrinch
02-10-2015, 04:42 PM
What's the difference between the so called "old isolationism" and the "isolationism" they claim Rand supports?

Nothing, it is just an invented term for them to act like, "well, even though he claims to not be an isolationist, this newfound philosophy is just another form of isolationism", in other words, the exact same bullshit narrative they've been trying to push since Ron.

Reminds me of how the term terrorist is just used as a synonym for "extremist muslims", even those who may be fighting for purely nationalist defensive reasons. I remember seeing a report of a bombing where the news asked, "Is this terrorism?". Of course it's freaking terrorism, the definition (used to be) something like, "using unconventional means to create havoc and destruction". Now it simply means, "can we point to muslims and blame them for this too?".

The spinsters know fully well how arbitrary and malleable words are.

r3volution 3.0
02-10-2015, 04:57 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/hh7v9.jpg

Sola_Fide
02-10-2015, 05:30 PM
The anti-Paul contingent all say they aren’t worried his views on foreign policy are gaining ground with GOP voters. Since the Islamic State took over swaths of Iraq and Syria and began executing Western hostages, polls show Republicans have reverted to their Bush-era instinct towards aggressive counterterrorism abroad. One Pew poll last September conducted after ISIS’ rise found that 46% of Republicans believed the US did “too little” to solve global problems, up from just 18% who thought so a year earlier. More recent surveys show terrorism high atop GOP voters’ list of concerns.


That's probably right. Never underestimate the power of the elites to incite fear into boobus.

invisible
02-11-2015, 04:40 PM
The fear, rather, is that Paul could get the nomination despite his unconventional foreign policy views

Since when did traditional foreign policy views (like no policing the world, no war without a declaration, etc) suddenly become unconventional? Propaganda at it's finest, right there.

invisible
02-11-2015, 04:41 PM
The fear, rather, is that Paul could get the nomination despite his unconventional foreign policy views

Since when did traditional foreign policy views (like no policing the world, no war without a declaration, etc) suddenly become unconventional? Propaganda at it's finest, right there.

Brett85
02-11-2015, 04:43 PM
Since when did traditional foreign policy views (like no policing the world, no war without a declaration, etc) suddenly become unconventional?

70 years ago.

Brett85
02-11-2015, 04:43 PM
That's really when the "policing of the world" went into high gear, after World War II.