Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: Lindsey Graham compares Donald Trump's foreign policy to Rand Paul calling it isolationist

  1. #1

    Lindsey Graham compares Donald Trump's foreign policy to Rand Paul calling it isolationist

    Last edited by dude58677; 04-27-2016 at 05:45 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I hate that damn missiles queen so much I want to break stuff every time I hear it's name.

  4. #3
    At this juncture, I'm kinda looking forward to seeing Trump get the nomination just on the off chance that this piece of sodomite filth leaves the GOP and goes back where he belongs. All of these Neo-cons belong in the Democratic Party alongside Hilldog.

  5. #4
    What's disgusting is Daily Beast and Raw Story are happy to have more and more "brown babies" bombed in the mideast,etc. if it means putting evil non-privilege-checking Trump in his place.

    Not that Trump is perfect but he's going to drop less bombs than Graham's list of alternatives.
    BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky – Washington liberals are trying to push through the so-called DREAM Act, which creates an official path to Democrat voter registration for 2 million college-age illegal immigrants.
    Rand Paul 2010

    Booker T. Washington:
    Cast it down among the eight millions of Negroes whose habits you know, whose
    fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides.

  6. #5
    Some folks might just call that "enlightened", Lindsey.

  7. #6
    Neither Trump or Rand are non-interventionist. They both say the Iran deal is bad, that our allies need to help fight their own people whom they fund, and that there is this critter called Radical Islam (hush hush) that Obama is afraid to name which we are at war with. Also they both think that presidents Clinton through Obama's interventions in the Middle East made a mess (which they did). They both kissed up to AIPAC.

    Trump is promising to run the Empire better and make the rest of the world help pay for it. If Trump was less xenophobic and didn't think the last couple presidents didn't make mistakes on foreign policy Graham would come out of the closet and like him better. Trump may criticize the president but his speeches have showed a lack of understanding of the Middle East that will result in his own messes. He wants to help countries that are threatened by Radical Islam, but I'm sure he doesn't mean the Shia based ones whom Israel and Saudi Arabia hate.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Trump is promising to run the Empire better and make the rest of the world help pay for it.
    Trump hasn't said we should force people to pay for it. He just says we should remove our bases and stop protecting them unless they pay for it.

    This is a libertarian solution to reducing our military presence - although the solution that we charge for those who want it is usually left out.

    And this is actually a more practical solution. For those countries with no or little military, such as japan or saudi arabia, they may not want us to immediately pull out or until they have time to build there own. This provides a better way to get there when immediate pulling out can't work.
    The problem with everyone saying When the Shit Hits the Fan is people took it literally.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
    Trump hasn't said we should force people to pay for it. He just says we should remove our bases and stop protecting them unless they pay for it.

    This is a libertarian solution to reducing our military presence - although the solution that we charge for those who want it is usually left out.

    And this is actually a more practical solution. For those countries with no or little military, such as japan or saudi arabia, they may not want us to immediately pull out or until they have time to build there own. This provides a better way to get there when immediate pulling out can't work.
    If there is a war wouldn't you rather someone else fight it for you instead of getting shot at yourself?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    If there is a war wouldn't you rather someone else fight it for you instead of getting shot at yourself?
    Sure. But that isn't happening instantaneously.
    The problem with everyone saying When the Shit Hits the Fan is people took it literally.

  12. #10

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Neither Trump or Rand are non-interventionist.
    Wrong... try again
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  13. #11
    War is a racket!

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Wrong... try again
    Someone who is a non-interventionist would not be pumping up made up threats, or ones that do not concern us, as well as trying to increase the military budget. I've stated why they both aren't non-interventionist. I don't know what is in their hearts but the internet has their words.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Someone who is a non-interventionist would not be pumping up made up threats, or ones that do not concern us, as well as trying to increase the military budget. I've stated why they both aren't non-interventionist. I don't know what is in their hearts but the internet has their words.
    Rand is not trying to increase the military budget, and in fact he wants to audit the Pentagon. He also does not want to intervene anywhere.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
    Trump hasn't said we should force people to pay for it. He just says we should remove our bases and stop protecting them unless they pay for it.

    This is a libertarian solution to reducing our military presence - although the solution that we charge for those who want it is usually left out.

    And this is actually a more practical solution. For those countries with no or little military, such as japan or saudi arabia, they may not want us to immediately pull out or until they have time to build there own. This provides a better way to get there when immediate pulling out can't work.
    Notice how shamelessly you're defending Trump.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Rand is not trying to increase the military budget, and in fact he wants to audit the Pentagon. He also does not want to intervene anywhere.
    Rand Paul Proposes Boosting Defense Spending: "His amendment would add $76.5 billion to the defense budget"
    http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Rand Paul Proposes Boosting Defense Spending: "His amendment would add $76.5 billion to the defense budget"
    http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
    That was a strategic move to get lawmakers on the record voting against cutting foreign aid without being able to whine about cutting defense spending. Rand doesn't really want to increase spending anywhere. Remember, this is chess, not checkers.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    That was a strategic move to get lawmakers on the record voting against cutting foreign aid without being able to whine about cutting defense spending. Rand doesn't really want to increase spending anywhere. Remember, this is chess, not checkers.
    He was still trying to feed the monster even if he was taking it from other areas. He played chess and Ted Cruz out played him and checkmated him.

    He doesn't sound like a non-interventionist here. Rand: "The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage."

    "We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS."

    "Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles."
    http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-...-isolationist/

    He even titles it:
    Rand Paul: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Neither Trump or Rand are non-interventionist. They both say the Iran deal is bad, that our allies need to help fight their own people whom they fund, and that there is this critter called Radical Islam (hush hush) that Obama is afraid to name which we are at war with. Also they both think that presidents Clinton through Obama's interventions in the Middle East made a mess (which they did). They both kissed up to AIPAC.

    Trump is promising to run the Empire better and make the rest of the world help pay for it. If Trump was less xenophobic and didn't think the last couple presidents didn't make mistakes on foreign policy Graham would come out of the closet and like him better. Trump may criticize the president but his speeches have showed a lack of understanding of the Middle East that will result in his own messes. He wants to help countries that are threatened by Radical Islam, but I'm sure he doesn't mean the Shia based ones whom Israel and Saudi Arabia hate.
    If only there was a way to look up a candidates policy on his website

    Rand Paul Supports a Strong National Defense

    I believe the most important function of our Federal Government is national security. As a Senator, one of the most important votes I could ever make is on a Declaration of War.
    Today, with the continued rise of threats like ISIS, we’re seeing the results of President Obama’s misguided foreign policy.
    That’s why I believe it’s critical we look to the guidance the Founders passed down to us as we debate how best to defend our great nation.
    The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war.
    We must maintain this important check and balance, and the decision to wage war should not be taken lightly.

    I believe in Ronald Reagan’s “Peace through Strength.” I will continue to stand with Israel and our allies abroad.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    If only there was a way to look up a candidates policy on his website
    Its still no concern to us regardless if Congress approves.

    This is the definition of non-interventionism: "abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions."
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/non-interventionism

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    He was still trying to feed the monster even if he was taking it from other areas. He played chess and Ted Cruz out played him and checkmated him.

    He doesn't sound like a non-interventionist here. Rand: "The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage."

    "We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS."

    "Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles."
    http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-...-isolationist/

    He even titles it:
    Rand Paul: ‘I Am Not an Isolationist’
    You have to read between the lines.

    I know what Rand was up to, and I know what he really believes.

    I also know that he lost many people in the grassroots over things like this because he was playing at a much higher level than many in the grassroots could understand. And he completely failed in keeping them on board by communicating to them what he was up to. And then there were some who refused to give him an opportunity. There is plenty of blame on both sides.

    But no, Rand is not an interventionist.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    Its still no concern to us regardless if Congress approves.

    This is the definition of non-interventionism: "abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions."
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/non-interventionism
    Ron Paul defined the modern non-interventionist foreign policy- whenever he was called an isolationist he was quick to correct them. Ron Paul says his son is the closest to his foreign policy out of all of the people who have announced they were running for president.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    He was still trying to feed the monster even if he was taking it from other areas. He played chess and Ted Cruz out played him and checkmated him.

    He doesn't sound like a non-interventionist here. Rand: "The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage."

    "We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS."
    Non interventionism doesn't mean that we have to ignore legitimate threats. ISIS is a group that has murdered three Americans and has stated that their goal is to attack us. That's different from previous wars like the wars in Iraq and Vietnam which were simply police actions for the purpose of "spreading freedom and democracy around the world."

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Ron Paul defined the modern non-interventionist foreign policy- whenever he was called an isolationist he was quick to correct them. Ron Paul says his son is the closest to his foreign policy out of all of the people who have announced they were running for president.
    That was true for the Republican/Democrat candidates.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Non interventionism doesn't mean that we have to ignore legitimate threats. ISIS is a group that has murdered three Americans and has stated that their goal is to attack us. That's different from previous wars like the wars in Iraq and Vietnam which were simply police actions for the purpose of "spreading freedom and democracy around the world."
    We have been bombing these people since 2003. This is Al Qaeda in Iraq under a new name.
    http://www.vox.com/cards/things-abou...w/what-is-isis

    ISIS goal is to create a caliphate which they have done. There isn't a country in the Middle East worth an American life or an American dollar as Michael Scheuer would say. They attack us as Ron Paul said because we are over there. If we don't make ourselves a target then we really won't be a target. Also bombing didn't work so far. Its been 13 years and ISIS has only grown.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    We have been bombing these people since 2003. This is Al Qaeda in Iraq under a new name.
    http://www.vox.com/cards/things-abou...w/what-is-isis

    ISIS goal is to create a caliphate which they have done. There isn't a country in the Middle East worth an American life or an American dollar as Michael Scheuer would say. They attack us as Ron Paul said because we are over there. If we don't make ourselves a target then we really won't be a target. Also bombing didn't work so far. Its been 13 years and ISIS has only grown.
    I wasn't necessarily arguing that bombing them has been effective or is a good policy, but just that I don't really see support for bombing ISIS as being a violation of non interventionist principles.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I wasn't necessarily arguing that bombing them has been effective or is a good policy, but just that I don't really see support for bombing ISIS as being a violation of non interventionist principles.
    Ron Paul says its immoral and illegal:
    https://www.rt.com/usa/191404-paul-obama-isis-syria/

    We are meddling in the affairs of the Middle East by bombing them.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    You have to read between the lines.

    I know what Rand was up to, and I know what he really believes.

    I also know that he lost many people in the grassroots over things like this because he was playing at a much higher level than many in the grassroots could understand. And he completely failed in keeping them on board by communicating to them what he was up to. And then there were some who refused to give him an opportunity. There is plenty of blame on both sides.

    But no, Rand is not an interventionist.
    He should have started playing that way out of the gate. Also he shouldn't let Jack Hunter in on it (the guy spilled it). He played games on things that mattered though like the Iran deal. He also didn't reorient America's understanding on the Middle East, choosing to blend in and fade away talking up Radical Islam (the enemy has a name blah blah blah, I wonder who came up with this talking point), opening the door to Ted Cruz who ate his lunch.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think he was playing at a higher level. He alienated his supporters with his Romney endorsement and disingenuous game playing on the Iran deal when an internet search shows he thought it was overblown when his dad was campaigning. The people who sought to play at a higher level with never trusted him and Jack Hunter basically told everyone what Rand was up to. He could have given us a clear alternative since he didn't have the money of Bush nor the mouth of Trump.

  32. #28
    Anything short of perpetual war is isolationism to Lindsey Graham.





    Last edited by AZJoe; 04-29-2016 at 07:08 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Rad View Post
    He alienated his supporters with his Romney endorsement
    As I said, there is blame on both sides. Anyone with 3 brain cells would know that Rand had to endorse the nominee and he had already promised to do so. The grassroots should have pulled their heads out of their asses to understand this.

    The other side of the coin is that Rand did such a piss poor job in the way of which he made the endorsement and completely failed in communicating with the grassroots that it's no wonder they left the reservation.


    As I said, plenty of blame to go around.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  34. #30
    After everything Rand said in the primary there is no way anybody should believe he is a non-interventionist. His complete bumbling of foreign policy is what led him to get 1% in the polls and completely flame out and destroy the liberty movement.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •