View Full Version : Why Rand Paul supporters should take heart tonight
radiofriendly
02-01-2016, 09:59 PM
The nonintervention faction of the Republican party (those opposed to unconstitutional and/or stupid wars) should take heart that the top two candidates tonight are both on record as clearly opposing the Iraq War, albeit after the invasion. Trump and Cruz also share a strong skepticism of the establishment’s arming of so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria.
While I support Rand Paul, it’s encouraging to remember Ted Cruz has also been rightly accusing Rubio of having the same foreign policy as Hillary Clinton. Of course, not as awesomely as Rand has...
Somehow, I think a certain older Dr. Paul’s ideas might still be gaining momentum?
It’s going to be a long, long primary season and it may all come down to the convention. Hold on…
We should take heart tonight and focus on the very real threat of Rubio...
Linkage: http://iroots.org/2016/02/01/iowa-results-trump-for-real-establishment-in-trouble/
Theocrat
02-01-2016, 10:02 PM
The nonintervention faction of the Republican party (those opposed to unconstitutional and/or stupid wars) should take heart that the top two candidates tonight are both on record as clearly opposing the Iraq War, albeit after the invasion. Trump and Cruz also share a strong skepticism of the establishment’s arming of so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria.
While I support Rand Paul, it’s encouraging to remember Ted Cruz has also been rightly accusing Rubio of having the same foreign policy as Hillary Clinton. Of course, not as awesomely as Rand has...
Somehow, I think a certain older Dr. Paul’s ideas might still be gaining momentum?
It’s going to be a long, long primary season and it may all come down to the convention. Hold on…
We should take heart tonight and focus on the very real threat of Rubio...
Linkage: http://iroots.org/2016/02/01/iowa-results-trump-for-real-establishment-in-trouble/
Right, because wanting to see "the sand glow" in the Middle East is definitely a noninterventionist position. :rolleyes:
adam220891
02-01-2016, 10:03 PM
Right, because wanting to see "the sand glow" in the Middle East is definitely a noninterventionist position. :rolleyes:
Seriously.
These guys are all pieces of shit that will say whatever gets them votes.
ONE man. I repeat ONE fucking man actually is consistent in his message of peace, liberty, and responsible spending.
The rest of them can fuck right off.
spikel
02-01-2016, 10:04 PM
Right, because wanting to see "the sand glow" in the Middle East is definitely a noninterventionist position. :rolleyes:
Seriously, Ted Cruz non interventionalist... uhh no way! The guy hijacks Paul's ideas word for word until it comes to war, then he's a total neocon fear mongerer!
heavenlyboy34
02-01-2016, 10:05 PM
Right, because wanting to see "the sand glow" in the Middle East is definitely a noninterventionist position. :rolleyes:
This^^ OP seems to be wishful thinking to me. War-mongering WRT Iran and Syria has been popular in teh GOP in recent years, and the anti-war faction of the Partei isn't allowed a significant voice in MSM.
Crashland
02-01-2016, 10:07 PM
I honestly don't know what Cruz's foreign policy would really be like. I don't believe him when he says he's the liberty candidate but I also don't believe him when he talks about carpet bombing the middle east. Basically I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
Chieppa1
02-01-2016, 10:08 PM
Damn it. When will it end with the Cruz crap? The man literally is running to make Israel Great Again.
hells_unicorn
02-01-2016, 10:12 PM
As much as I despise Donald Trump, there is one grain of truth to the OP in his case, namely that Trump's bloodthirsty rhetoric on the Mid-East question is more reactionary than it is interventionist. My major hang up with Trump on the foreign policy front is his irrational hostility towards the Far East, and particularly China. Likewise, the guy's economic views are obnoxiously authoritarian and so diametrically opposed to the market principles that actually creates wealth as he comes off less as a mere protectionist and more like a dyed-in-the-wool, old school mercantile ideologue, to the point of becoming a parody version of what Adam Smith was deriding in "Wealth Of Nations".
heavenlyboy34
02-01-2016, 10:14 PM
As much as I despise Donald Trump, there is one grain of truth to the OP in his case, namely that Trump's bloodthirsty rhetoric on the Mid-East question is more reactionary than it is interventionist. My major hang up with Trump on the foreign policy front is his irrational hostility towards the Far East, and particularly China. Likewise, the guy's economic views are obnoxiously authoritarian and so diametrically opposed to the market principles that actually creates wealth as he comes off less as a mere protectionist and more like a dyed-in-the-wool, old school mercantile ideologue, to the point of becoming a parody version of what Adam Smith was deriding in "Wealth Of Nations". Therefore, VERMIN SUPREME 2016!!! ;) :D
01000110
02-01-2016, 10:16 PM
Therefore, VERMIN SUPREME 2016!!! ;) :D
I'll be laughed at for asking probably, but what the heck is VERMIN SUPREME?
Chieppa1
02-01-2016, 10:16 PM
As much as I despise Donald Trump, there is one grain of truth to the OP in his case, namely that Trump's bloodthirsty rhetoric on the Mid-East question is more reactionary than it is interventionist. My major hang up with Trump on the foreign policy front is his irrational hostility towards the Far East, and particularly China. Likewise, the guy's economic views are obnoxiously authoritarian and so diametrically opposed to the market principles that actually creates wealth as he comes off less as a mere protectionist and more like a dyed-in-the-wool, old school mercantile ideologue, to the point of becoming a parody version of what Adam Smith was deriding in "Wealth Of Nations".
I can get with this point. Trump isn't trying to launch a new front in the war to control the world. Like Rubio and Cruz. Yes, Cruz. Cruz supports Israel more than he supports America. And Israel wants destabilization and expansion in the ME.
adam220891
02-01-2016, 10:18 PM
I'll be laughed at for asking probably, but what the heck is VERMIN SUPREME?
He promises ponies for everyone and wears a boot on his head. TBH, a worthy second choice.
radiofriendly
02-01-2016, 10:20 PM
Damn it. When will it end with the Cruz crap? The man literally is running to make Israel Great Again.
Even feigned support of nonintervention is a sign that the ideas are popular and making the establishment really squirm. See the videos in my link. Glowing sand aside, Cruz really is accusing Rubio of being for too much intervention and regime change. Does he mean it? i don't know, but I can be encouraged that we are on a side that is strategically winning...
I will take heart in the fact that if either Trump or Cruz takes the nomination, the GOP will lose the election. Now, if the Dems can make Sanders their nominee and he becomes president, we'll have a state of gridlock between congress and the WH. I think that's the best thing short of a Rand Paul presidency.
dbill27
02-01-2016, 10:30 PM
The OP is correct although I understand the skeptical posters as well. I saw Donald Trump giving a speech in Iowa today asking why we are paying for the defense of rich countries like Germany, South Korea etc. Pretty much the same thing Ron was saying on this day 4 years ago. Although the politicians echoing ideas we support may not mean they themselves really support or care about such ideas it means our ideas are now politically acceptable and gaining traction.
Theocrat
02-01-2016, 10:31 PM
Even feigned support of nonintervention is a sign that the ideas are popular and making the establishment really squirm. See the videos in my link. Glowing sand aside, Cruz really is accusing Rubio of being for too much intervention and regime change. Does he mean it? i don't know, but I can be encouraged that we are on a side that is strategically winning...
No, we don't cast aside Cruz's wanting to see "sand glow" in the Middle East. He needs to be held accountable for that position, especially since it entails murdering innocent civilians, which is not a pro-life position (as Cruz claims to be).
dbill27
02-01-2016, 10:34 PM
I will take heart in the fact that if either Trump or Cruz takes the nomination, the GOP will lose the election. Now, if the Dems can make Sanders their nominee and he becomes president, we'll have a state of gridlock between congress and the WH. I think that's the best thing short of a Rand Paul presidency.
I think both Trump and Cruz are more electable than you think but either way a clinton/sanders presidency will not just be a gridlock with nothing bad or good happening. The next 25 years of supreme court decisions will be influenced by the next president and I'd much rather have a republican choosing them. John Roberts screwed us but by and large the justices chosen by republicans have been ten fold better than the likes of sonya sotomayor who will literally do whatever her party tell her to do. Also with the regulatory power by agencies like the EPA being essentially unelected law makers, A bernie sanders EPA would be a disaster.
Cabal
02-01-2016, 10:36 PM
Lolwut. The winner has been talking about saturation and carpet bombing indiscriminately. But non-interventionists should be happy? LOLOLOLOL...
I think both Trump and Cruz are more electable than you think but either way a clinton/sanders presidency will not just be a gridlock with nothing bad or good happening. The next 25 years of supreme court decisions will be influenced by the next president and I'd much rather have a republican choosing them. John Roberts screwed us but by and large the justices chosen by republicans have been ten fold better than the likes of sonya sotomayor who will literally do whatever her party tell her to do. Also with the regulatory power by agencies like the EPA being essentially unelected law makers, A bernie sanders EPA would be a disaster.
Yes, but I think Sanders would be least likely to bring about WWIII. That's majorly important, above and beyond all else. Because if we get WWIII, that's REALLY the end of it all.
heavenlyboy34
02-01-2016, 10:41 PM
I'll be laughed at for asking probably, but what the heck is VERMIN SUPREME?
:D Only one of the greatest POTUS candidates EVARRRR!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXuBOIdyz4o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1s_U35nE6Q
dbill27
02-01-2016, 10:42 PM
Yes, but I think Sanders would be least likely to bring about WWIII. That's majorly important, above and beyond all else. Because if we get WWIII, that's REALLY the end of it all.
I see sanders as being a four year president, seating half of the supreme court, implementing all sorts of anti-business regulations and executive orders before kicking the bucket or losing re-election and then the next guy starts ww3.
jmdrake
02-01-2016, 10:47 PM
This^^ OP seems to be wishful thinking to me. War-mongering WRT Iran and Syria has been popular in teh GOP in recent years, and the anti-war faction of the Partei isn't allowed a significant voice in MSM.
Ummmm....you're wrong. Neither Trump nor Cruz are "war-mongering" when it comes to Syria. Iran? Yes on Cruz. Not sure about Trump. But both have taken a totally non-interventionist "Assad should be allowed to stay" position on Syria. And considering that Syria is the war right now, that's important. Iran isn't going to do anything to give the next president, no matter who he or she (oh please Lord not Hillary) is, an excuse to attack or invade. And Iran does sectarian divide that Syria had which allowed for civil war. So if the Syrian war slows down, that's it for war for the immediate future. Meanwhile Rubio, Kasich, Christie, Clinton and other idiots are calling for no fly zones over Syria and confrontation with the Russians. That's world war III. The distinction between Trump and Cruz and Sanders war mongers in both parties should not be overlooked.
presence
02-01-2016, 11:11 PM
Seriously.
These guys are all pieces of shit that will say whatever gets them votes.
Yes but I think the op's point is that they're at least lying to look libertarian these days like its cool.
:D
gee_blee
02-02-2016, 07:32 AM
OP makes good point. Other observations:
1) Cruz is no Rand, but he's more libertarian than most any candidate we've seen in a generation (other than Ron and Rand). I realize the bar is low. If Cruz wins the nomination, I believe Rand could be on his short list for VP.
2) This could've been a VERY interesting race if Trump didn't run. I believe Rand would've easily been top 3. Tough break.
3) If Trump implodes at any point, where do his votes go - Cruz or Rubio?
randbot16
02-02-2016, 07:59 AM
Seriously.
These guys are all pieces of shit that will say whatever gets them votes.
ONE man. I repeat ONE fucking man actually is consistent in his message of peace, liberty, and responsible spending.
The rest of them can fuck right off.
Amen.
randbot16
02-02-2016, 08:00 AM
OP makes good point. Other observations:
1) Cruz is no Rand, but he's more libertarian than most any candidate we've seen in a generation (other than Ron and Rand). I realize the bar is low. If Cruz wins the nomination, I believe Rand could be on his short list for VP.
2) This could've been a VERY interesting race if Trump didn't run. I believe Rand would've easily been top 3. Tough break.
3) If Trump implodes at any point, where do his votes go - Cruz or Rubio?
Cruz is Goldman Sachs' bitch, and you're delusional, as is anyone else who thinks he is anti-intervention or anti-establishment.
Isaac Bickerstaff
02-02-2016, 08:24 AM
Cruz will not be the nominee. Let's put this into perspective: Trump has the highest unfavorability rating as well as a plurality of the support. A Cruz "win" was nothing more than a repudiation of Trump and his idiot cult members. Cruz only earned his win insofar as he positioned himself as the strongest anti-Trump. Most of his support will fade if Trump does, and the idiot voters will disperse back to some of the other nuts on the stage. A brokered convention is still very much a possibility. Where Rand stands in all this is unclear; not hopeless, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Makes Interesting Points
02-02-2016, 08:36 AM
Prior to the December 15th CNN debate, Cruz, in terms of positions, looked like the go-to "backup" for Paul. Cruz's foreign policy had the caution with toppling of a libertarian, but with the aggression of a conservative. But the theme of that debate was foreign policy and security, and Cruz realized that he would have to exaggerate some to get votes from the establishment base. That was when he started the whole "Carpet bomb them!" big talk. At first, I thought he was just doing what Trump does by talking big and pretending to be big on military spending. But Cruz never let up on it afterwards, and his actual foreign policy stance seems to be getting more aggressive, especially when he talks about rebuilding the military. It's still very possible that Cruz hasn't really changed his foreign policy from his balanced one, and that he is just big talking his way into getting the mainstream Republican vote. But even if this is the case, then it means he's saying whatever he needs to to get elected, which us Paul supporters don't appreciate. We want full honesty and logic.
gee_blee
02-02-2016, 09:04 AM
Cruz is Goldman Sachs' bitch
Evidence?
luctor-et-emergo
02-02-2016, 09:07 AM
Seriously.
These guys are all pieces of shit that will say whatever gets them votes.
ONE man. I repeat ONE fucking man actually is consistent in his message of peace, liberty, and responsible spending.
The rest of them can fuck right off.
QFT
sure, but Marco Rubio is charging up the rear
test-tube neocon
Cruz is too much of a weasel to win the general I think, he just straight is unlikable and say what you want but Trump is a charming entertaining guy. Cruz/Hillary would be the most miserable election in history. I don't think Ted would take Rand as his VP, he's much more strategic thinking so it would be someone he thinks would help him on election day. Maybe Rand could of been a serious contender for VP if he had the base his dad did.
So the question is, who could actually help Cruz? I think it is possible he chooses one of the Hispanic governors like Susana Martinez or Brian Sandoval. I would say Ben Carson but it has been a rough couple months for him so I don't know. Cruz will compromise to get the establishment support I think, maybe someone like Scott Walker? Dunno.
gee_blee
02-02-2016, 11:54 AM
Cruz is too much of a weasel to win the general I think, he just straight is unlikable and say what you want but Trump is a charming entertaining guy. Cruz/Hillary would be the most miserable election in history. I don't think Ted would take Rand as his VP, he's much more strategic thinking so it would be someone he thinks would help him on election day. Maybe Rand could of been a serious contender for VP if he had the base his dad did.
So the question is, who could actually help Cruz? I think it is possible he chooses one of the Hispanic governors like Susana Martinez or Brian Sandoval. I would say Ben Carson but it has been a rough couple months for him so I don't know. Cruz will compromise to get the establishment support I think, maybe someone like Scott Walker? Dunno.
I believe Rand could be on Cruz's short list (though I still think Trump or Rubio is more likely to win the nomination) because Rand appeals to independents and many liberals, and because the Pauls helped get Cruz elected and Cruz might be loyal to a degree.
Isaac Bickerstaff
02-02-2016, 12:30 PM
Cruz is very loyal.
Just not to anyone NOT Goldman Sachs.
I believe Rand could be on Cruz's short list (though I still think Trump or Rubio is more likely to win the nomination) because Rand appeals to independents and many liberals, and because the Pauls helped get Cruz elected and Cruz might be loyal to a degree.
You need to take this shit over to breitbart, this is the Rand forum, you won't get anywhere trying to promote Cruz in here.
gee_blee
02-02-2016, 05:32 PM
You need to take this shit over to breitbart, this is the Rand forum, you won't get anywhere trying to promote Cruz in here.
I'm not promoting Cruz. Jack Hunter's (rare.us) column today nailed what I think of the sermonizing Cruz.
Instead, I'm promoting Rand, while being realistic. In all likelihood, the Republican nominee will be Trump, Cruz or Rubio. And I'm stating that Rand could possibly be under consideration for VP by Cruz largely because Rand appeals to independents and many liberals. Rand is genuine, and Cruz would need all the help he could get in that area in a general election.
Regardless, I hope Rand stays in for as long as possible, and I'll vote for Rand in my primary no matter what, and I'll vote Libertarian in the general.
Chieppa1
02-02-2016, 05:37 PM
I'm not promoting Cruz. Jack Hunter's (rare.us) column today nailed what I think of the sermonizing Cruz.
Instead, I'm promoting Rand, while being realistic. In all likelihood, the Republican nominee will be Trump, Cruz or Rubio. And I'm stating that Rand could possibly be under consideration for VP by Cruz largely because Rand appeals to independents and many liberals. Rand is genuine, and Cruz would need all the help he could get in that area in a general election.
Regardless, I hope Rand stays in for as long as possible, and I'll vote for Rand in my primary no matter what, and I'll vote Libertarian in the general.
Trump/Paul 2016: Fuck you FOX News.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.