Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 69

Thread: Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Yep. Going up against Obama was a different thing. He'll have to fight his own party. Hopefully his base is strong enough to stick with him.

    trump wants term limits. That will get people like Rand, Amash and Massie out of his hair eventually.
    I was disheartened by Rand's 2020 chances when an "R" won this year. But if Rand plays this right - which seems like he may be doing - he may be able to finally crack the GOP right along the fissure line. At first, that would probably cause him to lose support, but in the long run, it could raise his profile enough to challenge a sitting President in a primary. And win.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Because Trump is not a non-interventionist and he holds the Pauls in disdain. The Pauls represent the opposite of virtually everything Trump stands for.
    I would feel better with a non-interventionist in that position but one wonders how will Trump get a non-interventionist confirmed.

    Not a fan of Bolton and his nom would be a concern. But I assume he would probably more easily get confirmed and ultimately would have to follow the Trump doctrine. The problem being I think Trump is easily swayed by whomever is in his ear which would certainly make a Bolton pick certainly a problem.
    * See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
    * Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Created4 View Post
    Exactly. He probably already talked to someone on the transition team, or Trump himself, and voiced his opinion, and was rebuffed. As a member of the Foreign Relations committee, he is letting them know there will be opposition.
    I would have done the same thing .
    Do something Danke

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I would feel better with a non-interventionist in that position but one wonders how will Trump get a non-interventionist confirmed.

    Not a fan of Bolton and his nom would be a concern. But I assume he would probably more easily get confirmed and ultimately would have to follow the Trump doctrine. The problem being I think Trump is easily swayed by whomever is in his ear which would certainly make a Bolton pick certainly a problem.
    Trump now has the bully pulpit and America is sick of war. Plus he would have some very vocal support if he nominated someone who favors a more sane foreign policy stance.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I would feel better with a non-interventionist in that position but one wonders how will Trump get a non-interventionist confirmed.

    Not a fan of Bolton and his nom would be a concern. But I assume he would probably more easily get confirmed and ultimately would have to follow the Trump doctrine. The problem being I think Trump is easily swayed by whomever is in his ear which would certainly make a Bolton pick certainly a problem.
    Trump's doctrine is interventionism.

  8. #36
    Rand Paul is speaking out against both Giuliani and Bolton for secretary of state:

    Paul argued that Giuliani and Bolton, the people whose names have circulated most widely, “have made it clear that they favor bombing Iran.” Choosing either for a key administration job, he said, would go back on the “America First” foreign policy that helped Trump win the Republican primaries, to the surprise of the Republican Party foreign-policy establishment.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tary-of-state/

    Edit: Doh dupe. Too many places to check for news now: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...on-or-Giuliani

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by harikaried View Post
    Rand Paul is speaking out against both Giuliani and Bolton for secretary of state:i[/url]
    Then we should all speak out, hopefully with intelligence and diplomacy

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    And why the praise for Bannon? I get that he hates Hillary and illegals. But I've been unable to find anything indicating he's a non-interventionist. So far, every appointment is a link in the fast-track to my kids getting conscripted.
    Most people here aren't non-interventionist anymore. They like Bannon because he hates Hillary and illegals. That is all they need.

  11. #39
    Well, Randal isn't just ending it there.
    Got an email from his pac:

    http://randpac.com/l/ban-bolton/


    From: info@randpaul2016.com [mailto:info@randpaul2016.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:02 PM
    To: specsaregood
    Subject: Ban Bolton!

    Specs, our Constitution and our founding fathers were explicit, war was not to be fought without the permission of Congress. No matter which party occupies the White House, I will not shrink from my constitutional duty to oppose any advocate for war.


    The true statesmen realizes, with reluctance, that war is sometimes necessary, but as a country we should resist would-be leaders like John Bolton who want to bomb now and think later.
    I'm urging you to stand with me to Ban Bolton from serving as Secretary of State.
    In Liberty,
    Rand Paul

    SIGN THE PETITION NOW

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Well, Randal isn't just ending it there.
    Got an email from his pac:

    http://randpac.com/l/ban-bolton/
    Just signed the petition. Thanks for the link.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41

  15. #42
    Bolton will not be Secretary of State.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    I would feel better with a non-interventionist in that position but one wonders how will Trump get a non-interventionist confirmed.

    Not a fan of Bolton and his nom would be a concern. But I assume he would probably more easily get confirmed and ultimately would have to follow the Trump doctrine. The problem being I think Trump is easily swayed by whomever is in his ear which would certainly make a Bolton pick certainly a problem.
    If Trump is so easily swayed, why is he not agitating for war with Russia?

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    What?! Over 6 minutes of Rand Paul on CNN? That's more time than he got in some of the presidential debates...

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by harikaried View Post
    What?! Over 6 minutes of Rand Paul on CNN? That's more time than he got in some of the presidential debates...
    Oh yea, we would start seeing Ron and Rand start making regular appearances on CNN and MSNBC. They build Trump up so now is the time to tear him down so criticisms from the right would be perfect.

    I just hope they don't bite too much into it at least not without calling them out first.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Bolton will not be Secretary of State.
    Nope. Rudy will be.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Nope. Rudy will be.
    Perhaps. It's better than Bolton. Maybe.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    If Trump is so easily swayed, why is he not agitating for war with Russia?
    Who wants war with Russia? None of them. Hillary tried to use them to distract Boobus from her own problems, but none of them want to lose their fortunes in a nuclear war.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Perhaps. It's better than Bolton. Maybe.
    No, it's really not. It's no different.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    No, it's really not. It's no different.
    Notice I said, "maybe". lol

  25. #51
    Interesting that Rand is pushing Corker for SOS....


    1- Corker is one of the biggest opponents against an Audit of the Fed. Getting him gone will get the Senate 1 vote closer to passing a full audit.

    2- Corker has a new nickname in Tennessee: "Corrupt Corker". He has had a lot of insider trading and suspicious investments and undisclosed income. It's kind of like the Clinton Foundation. If he gets picked it will be problematic because he has a lot of baggage.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  26. #52
    Anyone on twitter, help get the ball rolling;







    Brian4 Liberty has stuff going on also, there is a thread here about it.

  27. #53
    This is the problem with having a guy who knows nothing about policy or politics.

    Trump constantly rips people like Krauthammer and Kristol for supporting Iraq, then he is okay with Rudy and Bolton because both of them kissed his butt. I don't think Trump even knows what he is doing with these picks. He put Christie and now Pence in charge of these appointments and not surprisingly he is getting Bush era retreads.

    Corker or Sessions would be an improvement but you could do a lot better.

  28. #54
    never thought I would prefer Rudy for anything but this is a strange year. and as bad as Bolton is, Cotton and Ayotte are worse. I wonder what Rand will say about Cotton.

  29. #55
    I mentioned this as one of my big fears(not Bolton in particular, but neocon influence), after Trump's foreign policy speach earlier in the year. I think people have also ignored what a horrible neocon Pence is. Pence still thinks the only problem with Iraq is that we didn't stay long enough! Trump should pick Pat Buchanan as Secretary of State. Buchanan has an impressive knowledge of American, military and foreign policy history, plus has rightfully opposed just about every post-Cold War intervention and has been vindicated time again whether it was the Gulf when he ran against Bush Sr., Kosovo, Iraq, or NATO Expansion. It'd be difficult to read A Republic, Not an Empire and not come away with a deep appreciation for Buchanan's knowledge. Plus, Buchanan was a consistent Trump supporter. Sadly, Trump won't consider Buchanan.

  30. #56
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by MattRay View Post
    I mentioned this as one of my big fears(not Bolton in particular, but neocon influence), after Trump's foreign policy speach earlier in the year. I think people have also ignored what a horrible neocon Pence is. Pence still thinks the only problem with Iraq is that we didn't stay long enough! Trump should pick Pat Buchanan as Secretary of State. Buchanan has an impressive knowledge of American, military and foreign policy history, plus has rightfully opposed just about every post-Cold War intervention and has been vindicated time again whether it was the Gulf when he ran against Bush Sr., Kosovo, Iraq, or NATO Expansion. It'd be difficult to read A Republic, Not an Empire and not come away with a deep appreciation for Buchanan's knowledge. Plus, Buchanan was a consistent Trump supporter. Sadly, Trump won't consider Buchanan.
    Buchanan would never get through the Senate Approval Process. They would shame him with out of context book quotes.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    My expertise in assessing many of these people is lacking.

    My general position is this: if Trump is serious about the things his broader expressed goal of "draining the swamp" would entail, then it is my opinion that he need to make a clean break from the status quo. That means nearly nobody from administrations past, and the few exceptions there I would view as eminently dangerous.

    I can certainly understand the desire for appointing experienced people, but far more important is trustworthiness, an absence of being beholden to inimical forces, a "right" attitude, the knowledge of what liberty really means, and the guts to accept the costs of liberty even when it means significant short-term loss along various lines certain to make some people go berserk. Smart but inexperienced people can learn rapidly, and if we lose a few battles in the interest of the broader and longer view that wins the war, I am all for it.

    Another point of creativity: who says that those with the experience have to hold the cabinet positions? Why could they not be retained as advisors. Imagine Thomas Massie as SOS (work with me here). To my knowledge, he holds all the requisite qualities listed. Clearly he has zero experience, but he is sharp as a razor and would undoubtedly pick up the nature of the game rapidly. Why not let men like Bolton and Gingrich who have the experience serve as advisors at Thomas' pleasure? That way, if they try to screw him, he can dismiss them without cause. A man we know to be knowledgeable in the principles of liberty and of the required ethical and moral fiber would have the final say on the matters of his office, but would have at his disposal the admittedly superior resources of those who've been in the trenches prior.

    This arrangement gives the better of both worlds. The man of the right timbre makes the decisions aided by men of experience, which would best preclude the sorts of hanky panky of which so many Americans are so justifiably afeared. Once again, a return to the consistent and reliably disciplined avoidance of even the appearance of impropriety. It is not perfect, but it is perhaps penultimate in a world of imperfect men.

    Breaking with the past should perhaps be THE central pillar of a Trump administration's "platform". This man has an opportunity none of us will ever see again in our great grandchildren's lifetimes. He could do endless good toward the restoration of proper Constitutional governance without anyone having to fire a single shot. My fear is that this opportunity will be squandered miserably out of nothing more than a case of tunnel vision, if we can be generous enough to assume Trump's love of this land, its people, and his good intentions for better days for all.

    The talk I have heard of placing people from Goldman Sachs does things to my head for which my descriptive powers fail me totally.

    I have heard that Bannon is a sharp guy, but is he sharp enough to get Trump onto a more creative track regarding his cabinet strategy? I wish I could be given a five minute talk with Trump on this very topic on the slimmest hope he might listen.

    For anyone raising the objection to such an arrangement citing the egos of men like Bolton - that they would take it as a personal affront to be a mere advisor - I refer you back to the strategy of avoiding so much as even the appearances of impropriety. Advising them of this major strategic element, their reactions would tell us everything we would need to know in terms of how well they would serve such posts. It renders candidates self-proving to some extent.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  33. #58

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Trump's doctrine is interventionism.
    Only if someone pisses him off. Oh crap.

    On another note, he has proved to be a master of trolling people, nothing would freak out dems more than a neocon stacked administration again. Really though not much different than Hillary would have had.
    USE THIS SITE TO LINK ARTICLES FROM OLIGARCH MEDIA:http://archive.is/ STARVE THE BEAST.
    More Government = Less Freedom
    Communism never disappeared it only changed its name to Social Democrat
    Emotion and Logic mix like oil and water

  35. #60
    I would have less reservations about Giuliani than Bolton but they're both terrible for that position. I'd rather see someone like Jon Huntsman.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Trump says that he looks for advice from John Bolton
    By Brett85 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-15-2018, 11:18 PM
  2. Ex-UN ambassador John Bolton: Trump should take back NATO remarks
    By AngryCanadian in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-15-2016, 08:16 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-05-2015, 02:09 AM

Posting Permissions

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