Insight - why Sarah praised Rand

[Joeinmo]

Pretty simple Rand didn't bash Palin for endorsing Trump

Being that Sarah campaigned hard for Rand for Senate, and stuck up for Ron in 2012 when everyone else was bashing him, the Paul's are more honorable than that, and obviously recognized an ally. In addition, you could see when Palin got out of the shadow of McCain, she started to go non-intervention, from dumping McCain's hand picked punks and replacing them with her own non-intervention foreign policy advisor for SarahPac.


UPDATE: Rand responds to Sarah endorsement of Trump

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/20/rand-paul-donald-trump-is-a-fake-conservative/



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2016/01/is-this-why-people-dont-like-cruz/

Example below on Palin foreign policy from 2013

https://www.nolanchart.com/article10408-sarah-palin-weighs-in-on-syria-fools-mistake-html

[notsure]

Pretty simple Rand didn't bash Palin for endorsing Trump

Being that Sarah campaigned hard for Rand for Senate, and stuck up for Ron in 2012 when everyone else was bashing him, the Paul's are more honorable than that, and obviously recognized an ally. In addition, you could see when Palin got out of the shadow of McCain, she started to go non-intervention, from dumping McCain's hand picked punks and replacing them with her own non-intervention foreign policy advisor for SarahPac.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2016/01/is-this-why-people-dont-like-cruz/

That's what I think too. I'd really like to believe there was nothing but good intentions and respect for her to give Rand credit like that. I'm gonna play devil's advocate and say, on the other hand, while she was talking about all the candidates who are in Congress, she did specifically only call out Rand, and say he would be better off in the Senate and not in the WH, essentially saying don't vote for Rand. Rand should seize the opportunity to respond to Sarah's kind words and suggestion. If she starts really campaigning for Donald, this wouldn't be bad at all for us. Maybe for Rubio or Bush or maybe even Ted at this point, who will most likely be on the receiving end of the more harsher criticisms. If Donald doesn't go the distance, she can always switch her endorsement and carry over her Trump cred.

[FriedChicken]

I am thrilled to death she didn't endorse Cruz.
However ... endorsing Trump? Strategically that's great but ideologically not so much.

I'm quite disappointed with her. I'm one of the few in this forum who likes her and doesn't complain about her voice or make snarky comments/quotes from liberal media regarding her character but I'm pretty disappointed in this. Trump has no respect for her, she just got played. Screw her for being an idiot.

[FriedChicken]

is the OP associated with the OP's link?

[rich34]

Maybe she's simply trying to win over some of Rand's supporters for the Trump. And I don't believe her being a non interventionist for one second. "And let's go kick isis ass..."

[jmdrake]

Maybe she's simply trying to win over some of Rand's supporters for the Trump. And I don't believe her being a non interventionist for one second. "And let's go kick isis ass..."

Ummmm.....non interventionism doesn't mean you don't go after people who attacked you. It was not interventionism that caused Ron Paul to vote for the AUMF to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I'm not saying this to defend Palin. I think endorsing someone like Trump who called for a complete assault weapons ban in inexcusable. But some of us to the movement a disservice by conflating non interventionism with pacifism. And to be honest, what's Donald Trump's "real plan" at this point for going after ISIS? Bomb the oil wells? Already being done. Let Putin take out ISIS? Rand agrees. Rather than "hating" on Trump (and Palin) for wanting to take out an enemy that most Americans hate, shouldn't we instead be pointing out that Rand's plan to take out ISIS is just as effective and pretty much the same thing? Oh...but Rand doesn't dress his plan up with gratuitous rhetoric like "And I'm going to kill their families."

[randbot16]

She's a television personality at this point, like Trump, she's probably hoping to get a national TV deal out of this. I don't know why anyone gives a rats ass who she endorses or praises.

[rich34]

Ummmm.....non interventionism doesn't mean you don't go after people who attacked you. It was not interventionism that caused Ron Paul to vote for the AUMF to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I'm not saying this to defend Palin. I think endorsing someone like Trump who called for a complete assault weapons ban in inexcusable. But some of us to the movement a disservice by conflating non interventionism with pacifism. And to be honest, what's Donald Trump's "real plan" at this point for going after ISIS? Bomb the oil wells? Already being done. Let Putin take out ISIS? Rand agrees. Rather than "hating" on Trump (and Palin) for wanting to take out an enemy that most Americans hate, shouldn't we instead be pointing out that Rand's plan to take out ISIS is just as effective and pretty much the same thing? Oh...but Rand doesn't dress his plan up with gratuitous rhetoric like "And I'm going to kill their families."

I know that.. And am not opposed to that one bit. I suppose I must have missed the news when isis attacked us?? My fault, can someone fill me in on when this happened? I do remember the U.S wanting to take Assad out and shortly after isis popping up. But yeah of course Rand has a plan for takin out isis and is obviously the best proposal for doing so. Anyway I think there's a lot more going on there than we truly know.

[EBounding]

I didn't watch the video. Did she praise any of the other candidates?

[rich34]

Oh and I wasn't hating on Trump just giving my opinion as to why she mentioned Rand which she had stated shortly before that Rand should stay in the senate. So yeah imho that was her attempt at winning over Rand supporters for Trump. No thanks..Think yes.

[randbot16]

Ummmm.....non interventionism doesn't mean you don't go after people who attacked you.

Let's not forget for a minute who ISIS is. ISIS is a us-funded, armed and trained proxy militia being used to A) topple regimes and create instability and B) To serve as a bogeyman to scare Americans into accepting more intervention abroad (and from some of these comments, its obviously working)

British SAS are embedded in ISIS. CIA are embedded in ISIS. Mossad are embedded in ISIS. The Saudis are embedded in ISIS. That is why the likes of Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are so mad that Russia is bombing ISIS.

If we allow ourselves to be steered into the debate over how best to destroy a fictitious enemy, then we've lost all hope. I like that Rand has focused on how ISIS came to be, citing arms from the US and support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He goes as far as he can go without falling into the conspiracy theorist trap. We need to be more aggressive about the origins of ISIS and not be debating over whether Ron Paul would vote for intervention against them.

Ever consider the possibility that Rand urged a vote for authorization for use of force against ISIS to put the establishment on the spot, knowing they would choose illegal war as a cover for the fact that there is no difference between ISIS and "Moderate Rebels"? Kinda like how when he put forth the Stand With Israel act that Israel-loving neocons killed?

[CPUd]

Let's not forget for a minute who ISIS is. ISIS is a us-funded, armed and trained proxy militia being used to A) topple regimes and create instability and B) To serve as a bogeyman to scare Americans into accepting more intervention abroad (and from some of these comments, its obviously working)

British SAS are embedded in ISIS. CIA are embedded in ISIS. Mossad are embedded in ISIS. The Saudis are embedded in ISIS. That is why the likes of Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are so mad that Russia is bombing ISIS.

If we allow ourselves to be steered into the debate over how best to destroy a fictitious enemy, then we've lost all hope. I like that Rand has focused on how ISIS came to be, citing arms from the US and support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He goes as far as he can go without falling into the conspiracy theorist trap. We need to be more aggressive about the origins of ISIS and not be debating over whether Ron Paul would vote for intervention against them.

Ever consider the idea that Rand urged a vote for authorization for use of force against ISIS to put the establishment on the spot, knowing they would choose illegal war as a cover for the fact that there is no difference between ISIS and "Moderate Rebels"? Kinda like how when he put forth the Stand With Israel act that Israel-loving neocons killed?

http://i.imgur.com/Lc466Pn.png
http://i.imgur.com/25qA3yn.jpg

[randbot16]

http://i.imgur.com/Lc466Pn.png
http://i.imgur.com/25qA3yn.jpg

I couldn't have said it better.

[Joeinmo]

Maybe she's simply trying to win over some of Rand's supporters for the Trump. And I don't believe her being a non interventionist for one second. "And let's go kick isis ass..."

Compared to her old running mate, she has went 180 degrees the other way and that's positive - but let's be clear she is not as libertarian like a Rand, she does have libertarian small leanings, however her foreign policy advisor for her pac is non-interventionist. Biggest difference is that Sarah still hangs on to Israel too much.

this article is from 2013,

https://www.nolanchart.com/article10408-sarah-palin-weighs-in-on-syria-fools-mistake-html

[erowe1]

Pretty simple Rand didn't bash Palin for endorsing Trump

Being that Sarah campaigned hard for Rand for Senate, and stuck up for Ron in 2012 when everyone else was bashing him, the Paul's are more honorable than that, and obviously recognized an ally. In addition, you could see when Palin got out of the shadow of McCain, she started to go non-intervention, from dumping McCain's hand picked punks and replacing them with her own non-intervention foreign policy advisor for SarahPac.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2016/01/is-this-why-people-dont-like-cruz/

Sure, that's definitely true. But the flip side is that Cruz did, and saying nice things about Rand and not Cruz was a way to punish Cruz without mentioning him. It's not a coincidence that Trump also gains more from Cruz's loss than he loses from Rand's gain.

[erowe1]

Compared to her old running mate, she has went 180 degrees the other way

I doubt that.

[Foreigner]

I didn't watch the video. Did she praise any of the other candidates?

No. Only Rand.

[Tinnuhana]

So, Sarah is for eminent domain now?

[erowe1]

So, Sarah is for eminent domain now?

She always has been. She's championed its use and used it herself.

But now I guess she's also for partial birth abortion, the gay agenda, single payer healthcare, and taking away our guns.

[EBounding]

Palin is a carbon copy of Trump, so of course she endorsed him. Like Trump, she's not about idelology, but building her own "brand".

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sarah-palin-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/


1. They’re not all that conservative

Palin has a reputation for being very conservative, but she’s not. OnTheIssues.org, which grades public statements, rates her as a “moderate conservative.” Palin supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. She has described herself as a feminist. Palin is far less conservative than other Republican bigwigs, such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio; both rate as “hard-core conservatives.”

Palin’s ideology lines up much better with Trump’s. When you convert Palin’s and Trump’s OnTheIssues grades to a -100 (most liberal) to 100 (most conservative) scale,1 Palin and Trump have nearly identical scores (47.4 for Palin and 47.5 for Trump). Trump has strayed from conservative orthodoxy on abortion, foreign policy, gay marriage, Social Security and a whole host of other issues. Palin is more interested in outsider credentials than conservative bona fides.

[Joeinmo]

Palin is a carbon copy of Trump, so of course she endorsed him. Like Trump, she's not about idelology, but building her own "brand".

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sarah-palin-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/

not a Trump fan, but rating Cruz as a hard core conservative is a laugher, he is a fake and so is Rubio

[erowe1]

Palin is a carbon copy of Trump, so of course she endorsed him. Like Trump, she's not about idelology, but building her own "brand".

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sarah-palin-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/

It's not that she's a carbon copy of him. With him, the redneck schtick is an act, with her it's real. But the real Palin is a carbon copy of the fake Trump.

[randbot16]

No. Only Rand.

She praised Rand because in her heart of hearts she knows he's the only candidate that will fix anything. But he can't finagle her a better television spot like Trump. I doubt Trump will be under federal investigation for bribing her for her endorsement though, that's only for candidates the establishment ACTUALLY fear.

[Patrick Henry]

I think it means that they all know that Rand is going to do much much better than people realize.

[squirl22]

I'm one of the few in this forum who likes her and doesn't complain about her voice or make snarky comments/quotes from liberal media regarding her character

I'm another one of the few.