Rand is like an insecure teenager trying to gain favor with the "cool" kids by engaging in under age drinking (supporting sanctions) and smoking pot (supporting foreign aid). These are gateway drugs that'll only result in him getting into the harder stuff. (neoconservatism)
He's missing out on huge opportunity here. The country is slowly waking up to the ideas of noninterventionism. His farther got this ball rolling. It's time for him to drop this BS pragmatic posturing, show a little backbone, and stand up for what's right.
I don't see that happening though.
Kiev are the ones attacking, not the ones being attacked. And their indiscriminate shelling of Eastern Ukraine has claimed nearly a thousand lives already. Ron would never betray his conscience like that just to suck up to the neocon crowd.Originally Posted by KurtBoyer25L
This ^^^. With Rand I feel like he is "better than most." But that it not saying a whole lot.
Uhm, I just listened to it.
@ the 2:20 mark. are you referring to the part where he says "uh yeah, I've seen the iron dome system firsthand" then later says he has proposed we might be able to have such a system in the US. Then at the end says it is a good idea to work together. I don't see that as him affirming increasing aid to them for the project.
@ the 3:20 mark that one is a big more disappointing. he says he has "been in favor of helping the Ukrainian people with arms or monetary support." I don't like that one bit; but its a bit nebulous. I'd like to hear specifically what he is in favor of because neither of those have been in his proposals he has made publically. If it just means selling them arms or monetary support meaning trade deals, that would be fine with me and still count as a factual statement.
In neither bit did he actually say he wants to give more aid to either country; but rather did his usual tightrope walking and obfuscation.
Last edited by specsaregood; 07-26-2014 at 08:14 PM.
He also said, "So yeah, I think it's a good joint effort." The current joint effort is us giving them a few hundred million dollars for it:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.578916
And this was the most recent piece I saw on searching:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...-576-million-0
I have a hunch that the joint effort is more than just the money; such as technology sharing and implementation experience.
Wake me when Randal actually votes to give out foreign aid.
Like I said, I didn't like how it sounded but I've learned to just parse out exactly what he said and go with that; not what the interviewers say or what I think he meant by it. His answer to the question about the Ukraine was much more concerning to me as it doesn't exactly meld with his previously made proposals.
And that seems presidential how?
Well, with words like this, why wouldn't he vote in favor of foreign aid to Israel? I'm guessing the vote will happen, as the second link was just recently on this subject and apparently being prepared for a vote.
I mean, if he's really just playing some game, voting in favor of a few more hundred million in aid, is to be expected. No?
This is what happens when you try to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering, instead of constitutional talking points.
He brought up 9/11 and planes being used as short ranged missiles as a reason for a U.S. Iron Dome, but I sure hope he justifies voting against any Israeli foreign aid with the same approach, and using 9/11 as the reason.
Rand is going to have to earn my vote, I'm not going to vote for him just because I support his dad. He seems to be doing everything possible to thumb his nose at us, he's sounding more and more like a neocon.
I hate when those people in Baltimore launch their missiles on Washington, D.C.
Rand used the "iron dome" thing to plant the seed of a defensive military strategy in the U.S. as opposed to a interventionist strategy. And seemed to suggest that we could benefit by the Israelis sharing their "iron dome" technology with us. Brilliant, in my opinion.
Last edited by anaconda; 07-27-2014 at 10:10 PM.
For reference... 'Slaughterhouse': Civilians die in Kiev's ruthless military attacks (GRAPHIC)Kiev are the ones attacking, not the ones being attacked. And their indiscriminate shelling of Eastern Ukraine has claimed nearly a thousand lives already. Ron would never betray his conscience like that just to suck up to the neocon crowd.Originally Posted by KurtBoyer25L
These are situations that concern friendly countries in crisis. Sending emergency military aid to someone under attack is not the same as keeping them on the payroll for centuries. We can all agree that propping up a dictator with tax dollars in exchange for oil rights or aggression against other countries is a bad idea. Emergency wartime aid is definitely a debatable issue, but a separate one.
Aside - Kiev's bloody eastern Ukraine campaign LIVE UPDATES
In addition - Israel steps up operation in Gaza LIVE UPDATES
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-27-2014 at 01:19 AM.
After being an active organizer in the last two elections in support of Ron Paul, it is clear it will take any means necessary to win the presidency.
If Ron Paul was my dad and I had to live through a lifetime of politicians and media blacking out my father, I would do whatever it took to win and make sure to honor my father after I won.
"For those who think the fight for liberty can be won in a couple presidential elections, piss off!"
The fight for Liberty is a lifelong commitment that takes years of blood, sweat, and tears.Liberty isn't a Quick Service Drive through, if you have nothing to contribute, please do us all a favor and move along!
This all happened in January....
And what is libertarian or Constitutional about any of that?
The Voluntary Exchange Podcast
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"
"I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"
"My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."
im still holding my breath.
As long as you keep in mind that if you cast your vote for a candidate who cannot win, or if you abstain from voting, in actuality your vote isn't really going to the person you voted for, it's going to someone else.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
That argument gets old after awhile. It's the same old scare tactics...give it up. Yes, candidates must earn votes. If the candidate* sucks, what difference does it make whether your vote goes to "somebody else".
*This is not to say Rand sucks. It's a general argument to anyone who tries to talk someone out of voting 3rd party or from abstaining from voting.
It's not scare tactics, it's realism. A vote for a 3rd party candidate or a candidate who cannot win is essentially a protest vote. When I say your vote goes to someone else, I don't only mean it in the sense of the immediate election. Part of it helps build legitimacy for someone else's future run, although the effect is greatly diminished. It makes me wonder what all those Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 votes were for. Want to vote for some 3rd party in 2016 so that maybe someone else in 2020, 2024, 2028 can have slightly more of a chance?
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
As of right now, my 2016 vote will go to Rand Paul, assuming he stays the course on issues and wins the GOP nomination. If he doesn't, yeah, I probably would either vote 3rd party or stay home. And no matter how you spin it, my vote is for the person whose name is next to the button I push behind the curtain. No one else.
That would be true if the election consisted of a long series of single-elimination runoffs where the candidate with the least votes is removed from the next vote. Because elections are not structured like this, votes for candidates that have fewer total votes cause direct effects on the outcome of the election for candidates that are not the one you voted for.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
Can anyone explain to me why sending arms and money to Ukraine is in the United States best interest? I mean lets say even if Rand is pandering to some in the Republican party what is the logic behind supporting Ukraine or going against the rebels, why do we even care?
On the Iron Dome thing though I agree with Rand, we have been and should be looking into and funding those technologies for future national security although I start to get concerned when we are funding directly the applications of those systems in Israel for obvious world politic implications.
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams
Here is the interview on Youtube in case anyone was looking;
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams
I can't think of any reason why we should send anything to Ukraine other than maybe diplomats to help negotiate a peace agreement if they wanted our help with that. Rand was pretty much wrong on that one, but I question his sincerity on that answer. A better response might have been saying that he would "consider" sending aid without really coming out in support of it. Kind of like he says he would "consider" airstrikes in Iraq "if it makes sense" lol
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
It's true in all cases, because it's my vote and I will do with it what I choose to do. If people are worried that it will eventually lead to worse candidates down the road, perhaps the better option would be to promote quality candidates that can earn my vote now.
I don't think it helps Rand politically to water down the non interventionist foreign policy message to such an extent. Our message is becoming more popular with the American people every day. If I were an advisor to Rand, I would advise him to stand strong on the Constitutional/non interventionist foreign policy message. Of course, I'll never be in that position, and maybe Rand and his advisors are smarter than I am. I don't know.
It is your vote. But it would be naive to think that your vote does not negatively influence the outcome of the election when the people who share your views the least are unified, and you split the vote with the people who share your views the most.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
Well, here's what I heard Rand say in the interview:
"I've seen the iron dome system first hand...I've seen the video response where you see the missiles being blocked and cities saved from these missiles so, yeah, I think it's a good joint effort. In fact, I've gone a step farther. I think the iron dome might be usable within the United States and that we should continue to develop missile defense systems - they say this is more for short range missiles - but essentially on 9-11 we were attacked with short range missiles posing as airplanes. So, I think there probably is a need for some kind of defense for our cities in that working in conjunction with Israel on iron dome is a good idea."
1) I have not heard any other American politician advocating on national T.V. for developing missile defense systems for local domestic deployment. 2) I have not heard any other American politician say that Israel could help us with the local defense of our borders. Some potential translations of these statements are 1) Israel's defense technology is so effective that they don't need our foreign aid 2) Israel's defense technology is so effective that the U.S. could similarly utilize it locally. 3) The U.S. defense is not as strong as it could be because we have not invested our resources correctly, i.e. we've been invading other nations instead of securing our borders.
Last edited by anaconda; 07-29-2014 at 03:18 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us