The Peace Candidate - Lincoln Chafee

[Rad]

First off he is a Liberal Rockefeller Republican turned Democrat:
https://twitter.com/LincolnChafee

He isn't a Libertarian, however he is closest to Ron Paul on foreign policy. He supports the blowback theory on terrorism like Ron Paul. He also is polling badly and needs funds and I think he is more deserving than Rand. Rand flirts with keeping the Iran non-issue an issue (like what happened with Iraq that lead to the Iraq war). The NIE released to the public stated that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon. The deal is good considering Iran wasn't pursuing a nuke anyway and it lifts sanctions on the Iranian people. They do not deserve to live under sanctions. Lincoln Chafee at least deserves a look over by Ron Paul supporters. I supported Ron Paul. I do not support his son and find all the other candidates lacking when it comes to war and peace. Trump's only value comes from him pissing off his fellow plutocrats and giving us lessons on how to get political favors (if you can afford it). War is the health of the state and this man is the only one who is being honest concerning foreign policy. War has led to debt, loss of life, and loss of our freedoms. Lincoln Chafee deserves to be paid attention to at least. He deserves to be researched and scrutinized more than most of the politicians running for president in 2016. He also is in much need of support of the pro-peace constituency. The Pauls do not hold a monopoly on arguing for peace and Rand is seriously failing lately on that front.

Lincoln Chafee wants to bring Snowden home and not punish him because the government was wrong:
http://www.thenation.com/article/lincoln-chafee-adds-a-proposal-to-the-2016-debate-lets-bring-edward-snowden-home/

He voted against the Iraq war!
http://www.chafee2016.com/policy/

He unlike Rand is for the deal with Iran concerning its non-existent nuclear weapons program. He supports J-Street and isn't owned by AIPAC. He is against Israel mowing its lawn and wants peace negotiations with Hamas. He is against American foreign policy towards Russia, Syria, etc:
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/presidential-race-2016-candidate-profile-%E2%80%93-lincoln-chafee-d

Iran can have its revenge on us according to Michael Scheuer if we attack it: https://youtu.be/v1ex2HnovN4?t=8m17s

They have capability in North America he says...

[Peace&Freedom]

Chafee's appeal to us would be as a single issue candidate, at best. The liberty movement wants people who are across the board sound (or in Rand's case, strategizing) for liberty, and who can draw real grassroots support. Chafee draws flies.

[Rad]

Chafee's appeal to us would be as a single issue candidate, at best. The liberty movement wants people who are across the board sound (or in Rand's case, strategizing) for liberty, and who can draw real grassroots support. Chafee draws flies.Ron Paul also started somewhere and was made fun of for not drawing as many as others. War and Peace is a very big issue. Multi-Trillion dollar wars are expensive, loss of civil liberties because war is detrimental to them, loss of life, blow back, the war profiteers control the politicians (just look at Rand's opposition to the deal with Iran and his bill to increase military spending [link below]) in order to maintain the war economy. Ron Paul wanted to cut defense spending in order to balance the budget. This one issue has many faucets beyond the actual war making: civil liberties, the national debt, the war economy and how it warps our political system. That is 4 issues right there.
http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

[cindy25]

Chafee would make an excellent and credible defense sec. Michael Scheur would be better but confirmation would be impossible. Chafee would be easily confirmed.

[thoughtomator]

anyone else find it interesting how many people who barely if ever participate here have suddenly turned up to tell us we're all wrong about everything?

[Rad]

Chafee would make an excellent and credible defense sec. Michael Scheur would be better but confirmation would be impossible. Chafee would be easily confirmed.Michael Scheuer would be good. I'd prefer Philip Giraldi (Ron Paul's former foreign policy adviser): http://www.unz.com/author/philip-giraldi/

[Brett85]

So we're supposed to be one issue voters now. Apparently the liberty movement is only about foreign policy and nothing else. :rolleyes:

[hells_unicorn]

Sorry, not gonna happen, for the same reasons why no rational person here would support Bernie Sanders. Chafee hates liberty, so by extension he is not our friend. If you are not free economically, you are not free, period. Contrary to what some may say, peace can actually be quite deadly depending on the nature of it.

[Guitarzan]

So we're supposed to be one issue voters now. Apparently the liberty movement is only about foreign policy and nothing else. :rolleyes:


Maybe we should consider banning all Lincoln Chafee supporters/threads before they take hold of the forum.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Maybe we should consider banning all Lincoln Chafee supporters/threads before they take hold of the forum.

How dare their opinions differ from yours. I'm assuming that's sarcasm.

[Ronin Truth]

He has the IQ of a toadstool.

[Krugminator2]

Received an F rating from Gun Owners of America and the NRA.

Had a 13% rating with the John Birch Society one Congress and was consistently terrible in their ratings. Whereas Rand is at 94% lifetime and has the highest lifetime score of any Senator ever scored by them.

Chafee hovered around 50% with the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Citizens Against Goverment Waste gave him a 33%. Rand on the other hand got 100%. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ccagw-honors-sen-rand-paul-165600261.html;_ylt=AwrC0wyIFcJVJkoAMgXQtDMD;_ylu= X3oDMTByNXQ0NThjBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDBHNlYw Nzcg--

And, oh yeah, the Sierra Club gave him 80%. There is an endorsement every Ron Paul supporter will love.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/2569/lincoln-chafee#.VdClxPlVhBd


So in conclusion, Rand is a horrible neocon sell out war mongering squish who has embarrassed the great Ron Paul with his horrible terrible no good positions and the right thing to do is support a great liberty candidate like Lincoln Chaffee, who received an actual endorsement from environmentalist wacko, er great liberty group, the Sierra Club. as the next President.

[William Tell]

So we're supposed to be one issue voters now. Apparently the liberty movement is only about foreign policy and nothing else. :rolleyes:

Except for the ones who only care about immigration, and will support a candidate who wants to stay in Iraq until the Second Coming.

[Krugminator2]

He supports J-Street and isn't owned by AIPAC. He is against Israel mowing its lawn and wants peace negotiations with Hamas. He is against American foreign policy towards Russia, Syria, etc:


I occasionally see that Rand Paul is an AIPAC stooge. After all, he doesn't stand with libertarian peace groups like Hamas. So I was curious to see how much of that AIPAC money Rand must be swimming in. It must be a lot, right? He doesn't support Hamas, so obviously he is a sellout. http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all

Those Pro-Israel groups have weird way of showing their affection for a neocon stooge like Rand. They give him the least amount of anyone. And they run million dollar ad buys against him and they run ads of families getting nuked if Rand becomes President.

[AuH20]

Except for the ones who only care about immigration, and will support a candidate who wants to stay in Iraq until the Second Coming.

Trump is right on the the Federal Reserve's role and Immigration, two of the most pressing issues in the country today. Trump is certainly no savior but he is far from a single issue candidate.

[Sola_Fide]

Trump is right on the the Federal Reserve's role and Immigration, two of the most pressing issues in the country today. Trump is certainly no savior but he is far from a single issue candidate.

Trump is a single issue candidate. His single issue is his own self promotion.

[Sola_Fide]

anyone else find it interesting how many people who barely if ever participate here have suddenly turned up to tell us we're all wrong about everything?

I do.

[Rad]

Received an F rating from Gun Owners of America and the NRA.

Had a 13% rating with the John Birch Society one Congress and was consistently terrible in their ratings. Whereas Rand is at 94% lifetime and has the highest lifetime score of any Senator ever scored by them.

Chafee hovered around 50% with the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Citizens Against Goverment Waste gave him a 33%. Rand on the other hand got 100%. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ccagw-honors-sen-rand-paul-165600261.html;_ylt=AwrC0wyIFcJVJkoAMgXQtDMD;_ylu= X3oDMTByNXQ0NThjBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDBHNlYw Nzcg--

And, oh yeah, the Sierra Club gave him 80%. There is an endorsement every Ron Paul supporter will love.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/2569/lincoln-chafee#.VdClxPlVhBd


So in conclusion, Rand is a horrible neocon sell out war mongering squish who has embarrassed the great Ron Paul with his horrible terrible no good positions and the right thing to do is support a great liberty candidate like Lincoln Chaffee, who received an actual endorsement from environmentalist wacko, er great liberty group, the Sierra Club. as the next President.You are right Lincoln Chafee is bad on gun rights. What is going to happen once Iranians that are inside the US since the overthrow of the Shah according to Michael Scheuer strike back from an American strike against Iran? Are we going to have an increase in civil liberties or a decrease? It will be all thanks to the political ambitious votes of people like Rand.

Rand once said about Iran: “even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they’re not a threat. My dad says, they don’t have an air force! They don’t have a navy! You know, it’s ridiculous to think that they’re a threat to our national security. It’s not even that viable to say they’re a threat to Israel. Most people say Israel has 100 nuclear weapons.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/15/rand-2015-runs-from-rand-2007-on-iran.html

Chaffee is also a regular open borders Republican.

[Rad]

I do.Shouldn't the moderator be moderating these useless post.

[Sola_Fide]

Shouldn't the moderator be moderating these useless post.

What's useless about it? He made a good point.

[Rad]

I occasionally see that Rand Paul is an AIPAC stooge. After all, he doesn't stand with libertarian peace groups like Hamas. So I was curious to see how much of that AIPAC money Rand must be swimming in. It must be a lot, right? He doesn't support Hamas, so obviously he is a sellout. http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all

Those Pro-Israel groups have weird way of showing their affection for a neocon stooge like Rand. They give him the least amount of anyone. And they run million dollar ad buys against him and they run ads of families getting nuked if Rand becomes President.I know and Rand keeps on sucking up to them. Its fine to support Israel. Its not fine to make Israel and Saudi Arabia's enemies America's. Its not fine to choose political ambition over peace (the Iran deal). Rand knows Iran is a non-issue. He said so himself.

I don't want anymore terrorist attacks against the US. I'm sure Ron Paul wouldn't mind talking to Hamas. We talked to the Iranians and Soviets. He'd much rather stay out of it all together. That would be the preferred solution. The Muslim world knows the US who arms the Israelis for brutal attacks like in Gaza last year.There is a declassified CIA report that says Israeli treatment of Palestinians was radicalizing Sunni Muslims (you know the ones like ISIS and Al Qaeda). This report was dated before 9/11.

[Krugminator2]

You are right Lincoln Chafee is bad on gun rights.

Rand once said about Iran:



He isn't terrible just on gun rights. He seems to be terrible on almost everything, as I listed.

Rand supports and supported negotiations with Iran. He won't vote for this particular deal. So what? It will go through. He also said he wouldn't rescind the agreement if he were President. So fine. Chafee is marginally better on this one issue. Rand is like a 98 out of 100 and you have Chafee who maybe a 15 out of a 100.


I

I'm sure Ron Paul wouldn't mind talking to Hamas. We talked to the Iranians and Soviets. He'd much rather stay out of it all together. That would be the preferred solution. The Muslim world knows the US who arms the Israelis for brutal attacks like in Gaza last year.

The correct answer is for us to stay out altogether. The problem is you take step further. You seem to be siding with the Palestinians over Israel and that is your beef with Rand. I notice this a lot from the "antiwar" crowd. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Palestinians. Frankly don't care about either side. But if I am choosing I'm sure not siding with Hamas.

[William Tell]

If Rand saying we should end all foreign aid isn't enough for you, I don't know what to say. Does your boy Lincoln even oppose foreign aid?

[rg17]

Chafee on the issue

http://www.ontheissues.org/Lincoln_Chafee.htm

[Rad]

What's useless about it? He made a good point.I came on here at the very beginning fighting the newsletters trying to keep supporters. That was my motivation for signing up originally. I'm sorry I don't have much to say unless it is important. I figured people who were left out in the cold from Rand's betrayal on Iran like me would like to check out someone decent on foreign policy. Chafee isn't a libertarian nor a paleoconservative so he is going to have a record of gun control and open borders (libertarians like immigration but paleoconservatives do not). I guess all the antiwar peeps left who were like me and who were happy with Ron Paul's Giuliani moment and wanted to be a Republic again. Who saw war as the most destructive force of all against life and liberty. All that is left are Eric Dondero style Libertarian Republicans. Which is strange for a forum named after Ron Paul whose main focus was a peaceful foreign policy and ending the fed. He spoke good about the Iran deal recently. It is telling when he endorsed his son he didn't mention foreign policy. The conservatives at the American Conservative are unhappy with Rand because of his foreign policy. The Libertarians at Antiwar.com are sad as well. The only one that still seems to like Rand despite his flips and flops is Jack Hunter at rare (who is more of a hindrance than an asset to the Rand Paul campaign due to his former political incorrectness).

[Sola_Fide]

I came on here at the very beginning fighting the newsletters trying to keep supporters. That was my motivation for signing up originally. I'm sorry I don't have much to say unless it is important. I figured people who were left out in the cold from Rand's betrayal on Iran like me would like to check out someone decent on foreign policy. Chafee isn't a libertarian nor a paleoconservative so he is going to have a record of gun control and open borders (libertarians like immigration but paleoconservatives do not). I guess all the antiwar peeps left who were like me and who were happy with Ron Paul's Giuliani moment and wanted to be a Republic again. Who saw war as the most destructive force of all against life and liberty. All that is left are Eric Dondero style Libertarian Republicans. Which is strange for a forum named after Ron Paul whose main focus was a peaceful foreign policy and ending the fed. He spoke good about the Iran deal recently. It is telling when he endorsed his son he didn't mention foreign policy. The conservatives at the American Conservative are unhappy with Rand because of his foreign policy. The Libertarians at Antiwar.com are sad as well. The only one that still seems to like Rand despite his flips and flops is Jack Hunter at rare (who is more of a hindrance than an asset to the Rand Paul campaign due to his former political incorrectness).


You sound like you want Ron Paul to run in 2016. I do too, but sadly he's not.

If being "anti war" is the only issue that really animates you, then you aren't a libertarian. Sadly, many people who "supported" Ron Paul in the past were not libertarians...and this is becoming increasingly clear.

Furthermore, socialists like Chafee or Sanders can't truly be anti-war because at the heart of their ideology is a steadfast commitment to state coercion, which it seems always flows from domestic coercion to foreign coercion.

[Rad]

He isn't terrible just on gun rights. He seems to be terrible on almost everything, as I listed.

Rand supports and supported negotiations with Iran. He won't vote for this particular deal. So what? It will go through. He also said he wouldn't rescind the agreement if he were President. So fine. Chafee is marginally better on this one issue. Rand is like a 98 out of 100 and you have Chafee who maybe a 15 out of a 100.



The correct answer is for us to stay out altogether. The problem is you take step further. You seem to be siding with the Palestinians over Israel and that is your beef with Rand. I notice this a lot from the "antiwar" crowd. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Palestinians. Frankly don't care about either side. But if I am choosing I'm sure not siding with Hamas.Centcom commanders say that our policy on Israel makes it harder for them to deal with people in the Middle East. 9/11 was revenge for our support for Israel. I think it is sad that the Palestinians live the way they do and rockets are fired at Israel. My loyalty is to the US and I want the US to stay out of that mess. The antiwar crowd dislikes how Israel uses the United States for its war making. Many would quit talking about Israel if Israel would just leave us alone.

[RJB]

anyone else find it interesting how many people who barely if ever participate here have suddenly turned up to tell us we're all wrong about everything?

They seem to be seasonal, like tornadoes.

[Rad]

You sound like you want Ron Paul to run in 2016. I do too, but sadly he's not.

If being "anti war" is the only issue that really animates you, then you aren't a libertarian. Sadly, many people who "supported" Ron Paul in the past were not libertarians...and this is becoming increasingly clear.

Furthermore, socialists like Chafee or Sanders can't truly be anti-war because at the heart of their ideology is a steadfast commitment to state coercion, which it seems always flows from domestic coercion to foreign coercion.Rand violated the non-aggression principle when he went off to appease the Neocons on Iran. So people like Justin Raimondo (this guy really tried but threw in the towel after Rand's stand against the Iran deal) and Scott Horton aren't Libertarians because they don't support Rand? What animates me is bone crushing debt, loss of civil liberties, the war economy, and the loss of life from war. Here is Chalmers Johnson explaining why Empire destroys our way of life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQi4-97GXrI

[Sola_Fide]

Rand violated the non-aggression principle when he went off to appease the Neocons on Iran. So people like Justin Raimondo (this guy really tried but threw in the towel after Rand's stand against the Iran deal) and Scott Horton aren't Libertarians because they don't support Rand? What animates me is bone crushing debt, loss of civil liberties, the war economy, and the loss of life from war. Here is Chalmers Johnson explaining why Empire destroys our way of life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQi4-97GXrI

I agree with all that. No one like Ron Paul is running for president in 2016. Everyone knows this.

But to pretend that there is not a spectrum of nuance to the candidates running is nuts. Rand is more libertarian than all of them combined, even with his violations of libertarianism.

[Rad]

I agree with all that. No one like Ron Paul is running for president in 2016. Everyone knows this.

But to pretend that there is not a spectrum of nuance to the candidates running is nuts. Rand is more libertarian than all of them combined, even with his violations of libertarianism.I'm sorry but I am not going to accept scraps from the table. I'm not going to be like an evangelical who jumps every time abortion is brought up by cynical and ambitious politicians. That's what I feel Rand is doing on civil liberties. I supposed to accept that and stand with Rand when the cause of the loss of civil liberties is left unchallenged. Rand needs to deal with Empire and quit lying about the Iran deal. It doesn't benefit him. Those who want to be tough on Iran won't vote for him. He just loses my vote. If Chafee makes it through I'll vote for him over Rand. I'll hold my nose doing it but I will. Honestly neither is going to win and Rand will end up losing his supporters to a neocon like Ted Cruz. Chafee is the only one educating the public on foreign policy. I think Ron Paul had something to do with the Iran deal. He brought in fresh air and Obama ran with it and made peace with Cuba and Iran.

I'll be voting in the Republican primary because I have a really good congressman (he so happens to have a subforum here), keeping him in office is my number one priority. I'll probably write his name in. I wish he was running for President. He would be perfect. I'll be rooting for Chafee for President. I hope he gains traction to put pressure on Hillary and Sanders so a pro-American foreign policy becomes an issue again this election season.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm sorry but I am not going to accept scraps from the table. I'm not going to be like an evangelical who jumps every time abortion is brought up by cynical and ambitious politicians. That's what I feel Rand is doing on civil liberties. I supposed to accept that and stand with Rand when the cause of the loss of civil liberties is left unchallenged. Rand needs to deal with Empire and quit lying about the Iran deal. It doesn't benefit him. Those who want to be tough on Iran won't vote for him. He just loses my vote. If Chafee makes it through I'll vote for him over Rand. I'll hold my nose doing it but I will. Honestly neither is going to win and Rand will end up losing his supporters to a neocon like Ted Cruz. Chafee is the only one educating the public on foreign policy. I think Ron Paul had something to do with the Iran deal. He brought in fresh air and Obama ran with it and made peace with Cuba and Iran.

I'll be voting in the Republican primary because I have a really good congressman (he so happens to have a subforum here), keeping him in office is my number one priority. I'll probably write his name in. I wish he was running for President. He would be perfect. I'll be rooting for Chafee for President. I hope he gains traction to put pressure on Hillary and Sanders so a pro-American foreign policy becomes an issue again this election season.


You aren't going to "accept scraps from the table", but you are going to support a socialist like Chafee?

Why don't you just write-in Ron Paul?

[William Tell]

I'm sorry but I am not going to accept scraps from the table. I'm not going to be like an evangelical who jumps every time abortion is brought up by cynical and ambitious politicians. That's what I feel Rand is doing on civil liberties. I supposed to accept that and stand with Rand when the cause of the loss of civil liberties is left unchallenged. Rand needs to deal with Empire and quit lying about the Iran deal. It doesn't benefit him. Those who want to be tough on Iran won't vote for him. He just loses my vote. If Chafee makes it through I'll vote for him over Rand. I'll hold my nose doing it but I will. Honestly neither is going to win and Rand will end up losing his supporters to a neocon like Ted Cruz. Chafee is the only one educating the public on foreign policy. I think Ron Paul had something to do with the Iran deal. He brought in fresh air and Obama ran with it and made peace with Cuba and Iran.

I'll be voting in the Republican primary because I have a really good congressman (he so happens to have a subforum here), keeping him in office is my number one priority. I'll probably write his name in. I wish he was running for President. He would be perfect. I'll be rooting for Chafee for President. I hope he gains traction to put pressure on Hillary and Sanders so a pro-American foreign policy becomes an issue again this election season.
Did you vote for Obama in the general election?

[Sola_Fide]

Did you vote for Obama in the general election?

Sure he probably did. Obama was the "anti-war" candidate remember?

[RJB]

Maybe Chafee will win the Nobel Peace Prize as well for street cred, and if we continue to elect peaceful presidents like Obama and Chafee who "deescalate" these wars, we should have world peace by the time the sun implodes.

[Rad]

Sure he probably did. Obama was the "anti-war" candidate remember?Nope, Obama was a liar. The NIE on Iran in 2007 said Iran wasn't pursuing nukes. Obama was on stage like Rand now and the rest lying his little heart out. He also supported the destruction of our civil liberties in regard to the FISA bill. He also bailed out the banks. Now if I knew that he would make peace with Iran I would have voted for him but he was just a liar like everyone else on stage except for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. I never have voted in the general election in my life. I may never do so for President. My senators are crap and will always be crap. I just recently got a decent congressman (thanks to relocating).

[Rad]

Maybe Chafee will win the Nobel Peace Prize as well for street cred, and if we continue to elect peaceful presidents like Obama and Chafee who "deescalate" these wars, we should have world peace by the time the sun implodes.I know man. I think the economy will go down first. Empires have a way of ending badly.

[Rad]

One final post (unless there are replies by Dondero Libertarians) with a link to an article highlighting the foreign policies of the Democrat candidates. http://www.eurasiareview.com/14082015-quick-guide-to-foreign-policy-views-of-us-democratic-presidential-candidates-analysis/

[Sola_Fide]

Nope, Obama was a liar. The NIE on Iran in 2007 said Iran wasn't pursuing nukes. Obama was on stage like Rand now and the rest lying his little heart out. He also supported the destruction of our civil liberties in regard to the FISA bill. He also bailed out the banks. Now if I knew that he would make peace with Iran I would have voted for him but he was just a liar like everyone else on stage except for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. I never have voted in the general election in my life. I may never do so for President. My senators are crap and will always be crap. I just recently got a decent congressman (thanks to relocating).


Ooooh you mean Rand isn't a total non interventionist? No one here knew that. Thanks for enlightening us.

[Rad]

Ooooh you mean Rand isn't a total non interventionist? No one here knew that. Thanks for enlightening us.He is a liar. He failed when it mattered.

[Sola_Fide]

He is a liar. He failed when it mattered.

Hahaha ok. Thanks.

[Rad]

Hahaha ok. Thanks.

He says he was just parroting talking points for dear old dad. Funny that NIE is still good according to former CIA officers like Giraldi, Pillar, and McGovern.
“What I would say is, there has always been a threat of Iran gaining nuclear weapons and I think that’s greater now than it was many years ago. I think we should do everything we can to stop them,” Paul said to host Savannah Guthrie. But in 2007, Paul, then a surrogate for his father’s presidential campaign, told radio host Alex Jones that “Even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they’re not a threat.” “You know, it’s ridiculous to think they’re a threat to our national security,” he added.

Asked to clarify the contradiction, Paul first bickered with the question, challenged Guthrie’s interview skills, and then reluctantly explained that he made his comments before he ran for office. “2007 was a long time ago and events do change over long periods of time,” Paul said. “We’re talking about a time when I wasn’t running for office, when I was helping someone else run for office.”
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/08/3644294/rand-paul-says-flip-flopped-iran-hes-running-office-now/

Man check out the comment section: How they have fun with his flip flopping: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/04/09/rand-paul-explains-his-iran-flip-flop/

[Anti-Neocon]

Chafee is awful. Not only is he a full blown drug warrior, he's awful on other civil liberties too. He consistently voted for the "Patriot" Act.

Webb is the most liberty minded Democrat, but that's not saying much of anything.

I don't know who you are Rad, but as far as candidates go, if you can't separate the wheat from the chafee, you really aren't in a position to be giving advice.

[Sola_Fide]

He says he was just parroting talking points for dear old dad. Funny that NIE is still good according to former CIA officers like Giraldi, Pillar, and McGovern.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/08/3644294/rand-paul-says-flip-flopped-iran-hes-running-office-now/

Man check out the comment section: How they have fun with his flip flopping: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/04/09/rand-paul-explains-his-iran-flip-flop/

Do you like what ThinkProgress has to say?

[Anti-Neocon]

Do you like what ThinkProgress has to say?
Do you have anything to offer besides genetic fallacies and divisive identity politics?

[William Tell]

Chafee is awful. Not only is he a full blown drug warrior, he's awful on other civil liberties too. He consistently voted for the "Patriot" Act.

Webb is the most liberty minded Democrat, but that's not saying much of anything.

I don't know who you are Rad, but as far as candidates go, if you can't separate the wheat from the chafee, you really aren't in a position to be giving advice.

For the record, Webb voted in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act as well.

[hells_unicorn]

Chafee is awful. Not only is he a full blown drug warrior, he's awful on other civil liberties too. He consistently voted for the "Patriot" Act.

Webb is the most liberty minded Democrat, but that's not saying much of anything.

I don't know who you are Rad, but as far as candidates go, if you can't separate the wheat from the chafee, you really aren't in a position to be giving advice.

Webb is better on the exterior than Chafee, but I wouldn't go so far as to describe Webb as liberty minded by any stretch, he's more of a practical police-state shill rather than a brazen one.

[Sola_Fide]

Do you have anything to offer besides genetic fallacies and divisive identity politics?

I wasn't trying to be really logical with that one. We all know Rand is not a non-interventionist. That's not a news flash.

I love these self righteous tirades that condemn Rand for his deviations of libertarianism, and then offer supporting complete socialists in protest of him. It's hilarious.

[Rad]

Chafee is awful. Not only is he a full blown drug warrior, he's awful on other civil liberties too. He consistently voted for the "Patriot" Act.

Webb is the most liberty minded Democrat, but that's not saying much of anything.

I don't know who you are Rad, but as far as candidates go, if you can't separate the wheat from the chafee, you really aren't in a position to be giving advice.That is all true except Chafee is number one thanks to Rand's betrayal. However he thinks Snowden is right and should come home without punishment. I'm waiting to hear more on the Patriot act. People change positions. Walter Jones did. Chafee is a drug warrior. Most of them are. He should be challenged on that. Its still not as bad as the war with Iran that the Republicans want. Rand wants to kick the issue down the road so the war profiteers can lobby for it and scare the public even more on this non issue until Iran war I.

Webb is in the AIPAC camp on Iran and against the deal. Chafee is for the deal, for talking to our enemies, and you are right he is lacking, but there is no one else in the mainstream parties that is saying these things like Ron Paul used to do. The most important foreign policy event of the century so far is taking place right now and Webb and Rand are on the wrong side of it. Can America tone down its foreign policy or will it be "yes master" to Netanyahu all the way to war with Iran is the question. If there is war with Iran Michael Scheuer says that their operatives inside the US will conduct attacks on American soil. We can kiss even more of our civil liberties goodbye if that happens. I can't talk sense into Dondero, I guess I can't talk sense to his like minded followers.

[Anti-Neocon]

Well didn't realize that Webb came out against the Iran deal. I guess Chafee isn't any worse, but they're both awful.

[Rad]

I wasn't trying to be really logical with that one. We all know Rand is not a non-interventionist. That's not a news flash.

I love these self righteous tirades that condemn Rand for his deviations of libertarianism, and then offer supporting complete socialists in protest of him. It's hilarious.What do you care about? Its not civil liberties, its not fiscal responsibility (check out the debt from those wars), its not foreign policy because all those are tied to war and peace. Its not a deviation it is a massive betrayal, playing with the lives of millions of Iranians, thousands of American soldiers, and trillions of dollars just to appease some lobbyist while barely making it in the polls. He knows the whole thing is bogus but he plays along anyway.

Out of curiosity, where do you get your information? Dondero? Weekly Standard?

[Sola_Fide]

What do you care about? Its not civil liberties, its not fiscal responsibility (check out the debt from those wars), its not foreign policy because all those are tied to war and peace. Its not a deviation it is a massive betrayal, playing with the lives of millions of Iranians, thousands of American soldiers, and trillions of dollars just to appease some lobbyist while barely making it in the polls. He knows the whole thing is bogus but he plays along anyway.

Out of curiosity, where do you get your information? Dondero? Weekly Standard?

Haha Dondero?

I promise you I believe in less state than you do (none).

You bust Rand for his deviations and then offer a socialist in his place. That's nuts to me, sorry.

[Rad]

Do you like what ThinkProgress has to say?It saddens me because I wanted to like him. I accepted his support for Romney and defended him concerning it because I saw it was a non issue. When he kisses tail on small issues it doesn't bother. I accepted the Israel-Palestinian conflict would not be resolved and he would kiss AIPAC tail. I was upset about his support for sanctions on Iran, especially since I knew that he knew that it was all bogus. I was disheartened by the Cotton letter but that really has no meat to it. Then the deal came and then he totally lost me.

Since we are having a good conversation. I'll bring up Rand's big problem. Did you know he has a Jack Hunter problem (there be white nats down that rabbit hole)? Have you guys seen this from Jack's former colleague (look him up because this guy is the real deal): https://youtu.be/oLfKwJNWmf0
The Neocons (Jennifer Rubin is a Neocon by the way) know about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/07/12/jack-hunter-and-rand-paul-playing-the-game/
The paleocons are their main enemy after all. If Rand rises in the polls this is going to be the weapon of choice so be prepared. This is what they are going to beat him with. I don't think these extreme right paleocons are bad people by the way. They aren't much different from Israelis. They are like peaceful Zionist. They just want a homogeneous country like Japan and Israel for themselves. They don't want to hurt anybody. They just want to not associate with people that are not of European descent. Libertarians are all for freedom of association. That is where they click. Jack is a good commentator and I don't think Jack goes for this stuff but it sticks in our society because of American history. However this is what will sink Rand's ship into oblivion.

[Rad]

Haha Dondero?

I promise you I believe in less state than you do (none).

You bust Rand for his deviations and then offer a socialist in his place. That's nuts to me, sorry.Neither is going to win. At least the socialist is going to educate people on foreign policy. Rand is going to play the game. Richard Spencer in the video above thinks that is a stupid idea. How can he play it when they have all this footage of him campaigning for his daddy? I stand by my comment that Ron Paul made it possible for the Iran deal moment. He said what needed to be said. He got his son elected and many others for being a honest man. He deviated from Libertarianism but no one really cared except for the PC kochtopus people. Rand could have taken this wonderful gift the President amazingly gave us and ran with it. The facts were on his side, senior military officers would have been on his side, and those who care about peace would be for him. He instead chose to blend in and fade away: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/is-rand-paul-missing-his-giuliani-moment/

Here is Jack Hunter's former colleague Richard Spencer commenting on Rand Paul: http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2015/8/7/trump-paul-and-the-cucks

He asks at the end an important question. What was the point?

[Rad]

Oh I forgot. They used to work at this magazine (you should recognize a lot of the names there):
http://takimag.com/contributor/richardspencer/69
http://takimag.com/contributor/jackhunter/108
One guy wrote a book about Obama, borrowing a Harry Potter novel's title: http://takimag.com/article/americas_half_blood_prince/print

[Rad]

You've made a friend out of me. Want to know what Wendy McElroy who knew Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell thought about them? http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1299

[Krugminator2]

Here is Jack Hunter's former colleague Richard Spencer commenting on Rand Paul: http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2015/8/7/trump-paul-and-the-cucks

He asks at the end an important question. What was the point?

You realize Richard Spencer is a white supremacist, right? As in, like, the David Duke kind. I just posted a Tweet from him a couple of weeks ago about how evil race mixing is. The quicker people like you move on the better.

I am glad you do not like Rand Paul. Ultimately this stuff about Hamas and the Palestinians, AIPAC, citing the white supremacists, Taki Magazine and those evil politically correct Kochs and Michael Scheuer is about the joos. That is what these long drawn out posts ALWAYS end up being about.

[hells_unicorn]

You realize Richard Spencer is a white supremacist, right? As in, like, the David Duke kind. I just posted a Tweet from him a couple of weeks ago about how evil race mixing is. The quicker people like you move on the better.

I am glad you do not like Rand Paul. Ultimately this stuff about Hamas and the Palestinians, AIPAC, citing the white supremacists, Taki Magazine and those evil politically correct Kochs and Michael Scheuer is about the joos. That is what these long drawn out posts ALWAYS end up being about.

Jack Hunter is basically viewed about the same as David Duke by the average voter, GOP or otherwise. I actually read Taki's Magazine fairly regularly and agree with many of their points, but at this juncture having the endorsement of anybody associated with them would be a death sentence for any candidacy. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, but definitely not today.

[Krugminator2]

Jack Hunter is basically viewed about the same as David Duke by the average voter, GOP or otherwise. I actually read Taki's Magazine fairly regularly and agree with many of their points, but at this juncture having the endorsement of anybody associated with them would be a death sentence for any candidacy. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, but definitely not today.

Richard Spencer is on a whole different level than just Taki Magazine and Jack Hunter. He was one of the people dumping all over people like Matt Bevin and Tim Huelskamp for having mixed race families. That is despicable. Here is his Wikipedia. Would you cite a guy like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

[Rad]

You realize Richard Spencer is a white supremacist, right? As in, like, the David Duke kind. I just posted a Tweet from him a couple of weeks ago about how evil race mixing is. The quicker people like you move on the better.

I am glad you do not like Rand Paul. Ultimately this stuff about Hamas and the Palestinians, AIPAC, citing the white supremacists, Taki Magazine and those evil politically correct Kochs and Michael Scheuer is about the joos. That is what these long drawn out posts ALWAYS end up being about.Don't turn this on me. I'm what you call a melungeon. My people have already been repressed thank you very much. I am starting to regret not listening to Wendy McElroy. I looked at these guys around Ron Paul and said they don't seem to want to hurt anyone. They aren't going to get what they want except maybe border control. I'm not hanging out with these guys like the Pauls and their associates. Check the list on Takimag. See any names you know? Some prominent people in liberty circles. I think they are misguided on race (those who are more like Spencer) but they don't want to kill people. They just mostly want to argue about IQ and blame illegal immigrants for supposedly having low IQ and destroying the country through stupidity (I don't buy that argument, I think it is supply and demand aka cheap labor).

I know who Richard Spencer is. You guys are so kind to me so I'm showing you where Rand is going to be attacked and why. He hired Jack Hunter. They wrote a book together. His dad's friends and associates are in the circles of these people. Rand took the talking points concerning the civil rights act etc and Jack Hunter. Did he know? The media is sitting on this. It will come out. Perhaps I can wake people up and get them to ask themselves what does a libertarian mean when he says freedom of association (choosing who enters your shop etc)? Yes they do blame the Jews. It is actually far right Likud supporters who have ties with the military industrial complex for obvious reasons (they Israel the toys to put down their helots) and who can not forget the Iraq war and the future drum roll Iran war if the Republicans have their way. Clean break strategy hello.. you know about that right? Also these Paleocons forget about the Saudis. You know the ones that funded the 9/11 attacks, and fund the terrorist in the Middle East. Our so called allies (snicker). They also want Iranians destroyed. Strangely they don't get as much press as AIPAC. The majority of Jewish Americans support the deal with Iran. I dislike it when it becomes as you say about the joos because that is incorrect. Michael Scheuer takes it too far but Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has been blamed on us. Check out the declassifed document. Check the date bro (before 9/11): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/368971-2001-02-06-sunni-terrorist-threat-growing-senior.html

See what it said about how the Palestinian conflict was hurting us? They were right.

[Rad]

Richard Spencer is on a whole different level than just Taki Magazine and Jack Hunter. He was one of the people dumping all over people like Matt Bevin and Tim Huelskamp for having mixed race families. That is despicable. Here is his Wikipedia. Would you cite a guy like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._SpencerI disagree with Richard Spencer. How about Vdare, pretty much the same group as Taki. Named after the first white woman born in America. Virginia Dare!

[hells_unicorn]

Richard Spencer is on a whole different level than just Taki Magazine and Jack Hunter. He was one of the people dumping all over people like Matt Bevin and Tim Huelskamp for having mixed race families. That is despicable. Here is his Wikipedia. Would you cite a guy like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

I'm not terribly familiar with Spencer apart from his association with Taki's Magazine, but if he is literally that big on the issue of race mixing, he's too extreme for my taste. I come from a mixed white and Lakota Sioux background, so despite my strong misgivings regarding the deliberate attempts by Frankfurt School Critical Theory types to destroy all distinct culture from the world, I can't really condone a guy like Spencer. I wouldn't take an African, Asian or Mestizo wife out of preference and ease of potential extended family tension, but it's not a litmus test for me unless the person starts advertising it as some sort of badge of honor and tries to coerce others into doing it.

[Rad]

Where did you go Sola Fide? I'll leave you with this. If you look at my earlier stuff on the Paul's associations you shall see a connection. If you cannot connect the dots then Wendy McElory's piece will. http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1299

Rand's goose is gonna be cooked:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html

They know he does have previous associations with those people. I pointed out to you much of the whole sha-bang. He just doesn't want to tell private business owners what to do and so does Richard Spencer I would think. However in his piece criticizing Rand and talking positively towards Trump (I wonder why... we know why.. immigration that is changing America's demographics) he asked what was the point? I think it has something to do with bringing in the money bombs and handing supporters over to the Republican party clean of any illusions of ending the Empire (which would go against Republican parties state socialism/corporatism aka militarism). I can't imagine the movement 8 years ago people taking Donald Trump, Ted Cruz seriously. They wanted to end the Empire not run it.

I hope this thread illuminates those who can accept a very imperfect peace candidate in Chafee if they must vote at all. Agorism is a very acceptable position. I hope would be supporters of Rand read it to get a feel for the how wide ranged and varied the movement around Paul is before they decide to further enrich Paul Inc. I hope his supporters carefully go through this stuff and be prepared to stand with Rand when the storm comes. Because it will come. These associations will be brought up in the most sensationalist way. Rand will need some help eating his own words. I think bigotry is common even among those who will attack Rand. Some of it is easier to see than others. It seems they all have "an other" whom they demonize. Perhaps that should be researched and prepared for the upcoming battle.

[CPUd]

Are you a staffer for Rachel Maddow?

[Rad]

Are you a staffer for Rachel Maddow?No. I don't like her. I'm just someone who supports Ron Paul's message on ending the Empire and ending the Fed. I am just amazed at how polite some of the people are here that I wanted to dispel some of their illusions. I'm a former Rand supporter. I stood with Rand. He walked away from me. I still look at times to see if he will comeback, but nope, he won't. It maybe shocking to some but Ron and Dennis Kucinich are buddies. Dennis is a socialist. He is on the advisory board at Ron Paul's Institute: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/about-us.aspx

Now if I said Dennis was a good man. I'd be treated kindly here. I'd be overwhelmed with the detailed knowledge of him and his positions. I don't agree with much of his positions but he is a good man. I wish he was running again. I wish Ron was. Hell, I'd take Pat Buchanan. They all have aspects of them I wish weren't there but they are generally decent humans. They know what is right and stand up for it. They all know that mission number #1 is to end the Empire!

[Sola_Fide]

Are you a staffer for Rachel Maddow?

This kid is hopelessly brainwashed by the media.

[Rad]

This kid is hopelessly brainwashed by the media.So you don't like Antiwar.com, the American Conservative, the National Interest, the Financial Times, Lobelog, mondoweiss, counterpunch, Unz, asiatimes, RT, Drudge, etc? I guess nothing beats Dondero does it sunshine: http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/

[Sola_Fide]

So you don't like Antiwar.com, the American Conservative, the National Interest, the Financial Times, Lobelog, mondoweiss, counterpunch, Unz, asiatimes, RT, Drudge, etc? I guess nothing beats Dondero does it sunshine: http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/

Dondero is a statist. Why are you linking him to me. I thought we already established that I believe in less state than you (none).

[Rad]

Dondero is a statist. Why are you linking him to me. I thought we already established that I believe in less state than you (none).Because you remind me of him. You guys are still close. He is a libertarian. He is against ending the Empire too ;)

[Sola_Fide]

We all get it here...Rand is not a libertarian and he is not a non-interventionist. You can read my posts critiquing Rand and I agree with all the articles critiquing him from a non-interventionist perspective.

Let me say it in big letters so you read it: RAND IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN AND NOT A NON-INTERVENTIONIST. All of us here understand this.

Many of us here are philosophical libertarians and we barely participate in politics. You don't need to get on your high horse and rail against Rand's deviations from libertarianism. We all know them. We get it.

[Sola_Fide]

Because you remind me of him. You guys are still close. He is a libertarian. He is against ending the Empire too ;)

Well, you remind me of Rachael Maddow.

[Rad]

We all get it here...Rand is not a libertarian and he is not a non-interventionist. You can read my posts critiquing Rand and I agree with all the articles critiquing him from a non-interventionist perspective.

Let me say it in big letters so you read it: RAND IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN AND NOT A NON-INTERVENTIONIST. All of us here understand this.

Many of us here are philosophical libertarians and we barely participate in politics. You don't need to get on your high horse and rail against Rand's deviations from libertarianism. We all know them. We get it.You are right he isn't a libertarian, he is not a non-interventionist. He is just a run of the mill republican living off his father's success. You brought it on yourself. I was just going to quickly mention a candidate and go for individuals who were left standing by Rand. Who wanted someone who spoke their mind and was better than most on foreign policy (even how terrible the guy is) and could educate people on talking to ones enemies and supported the Iran deal. The guy isn't going to win. Neither of them are. I guess you inspired me to put things in perspective for those who didn't know the different crowds libertarians run in and where Rachel Maddow will attack. Where Jennifer Rubin will attack.

So what do you get out of this? Why are you here on this board? What does a person who isn't a libertarian and isn't going to win do for you?

[Sola_Fide]

You are right he isn't a libertarian, he is not a non-interventionist. He is just a run of the mill republican living off his father's success. You brought it on yourself. I was just going to quickly mention a candidate and go for individuals who were left standing by Rand. Who wanted someone who spoke their mind and was better than most on foreign policy (even how terrible the guy is) and could educate people on talking to ones enemies and supported the Iran deal. The guy isn't going to win. Neither of them are. I guess you inspired me to put things in perspective for those who didn't know the different crowds libertarians run in and where Rachel Maddow will attack. Where Jennifer Rubin will attack.

So what do you get out of this? Why are you here on this board? What does a person who isn't a libertarian and isn't going to win do for you?

You just repeated what I said. Rand is not a libertarian and he is not a non-interventionist.

Are you going to repeat it again like us imbeciles here don't already know this? Or are you going to enlighten us all genius?

[Rad]

You just repeated what I said. Rand is not a libertarian and he is not a non-interventionist.

Are you going to repeat it again like us imbeciles here don't already know this? Or are you going to enlighten us all genius?I was agreeing with what you said. You are such a nice person by the way. I think your motivation here is just to troll people and run them off the board. You don't have much to say. Also who is us? I only see you posting. Am I being tag teamed under that alias? I'm being trolled by committee.