This has to be Rand Paul's presidential bid op-ed....

[BaiHu]

I'm sure some of you have already read this, but this is some damn fine work and the work an American president should be doing right now.


America’s exceptionalism is rooted in our founding documents and values. From the rights granted by our creator, but guaranteed by our Constitution. We should not shy away from saying so, especially when our actions are in keeping with this exceptional founding, as they were this week in our debate over going to war in Syria. Our constitutional checks and balances were on full display, largely resulting in the at least temporary halting of a rush to war.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/13/sen-rand-paul-president-putin-america-is-exceptional/#ixzz2enVhBzn8

[Suvorov]

Bravo!!!

I am a product of the exceptionalism that is America and the horrors that are the past 100 years of Russian history. While I will give credit to Mr Putin for several things, I too took exception to his remarks about America. Rand Paul's response is frankly how you deal with a man like Putin. How can a man like Putin have any respect for a leader of a country that doesn't believe in the exceptionalism of his people and who travels the work apologizing for them. :confused:

[RoyGBiv]

It'll be interesting to see who decides to run in 2016.

Can Paul beat Cruz in the primaries? Does Cruz even have a prayer (pun intended) with "establishment Republican voters"?

Seems Paul would be the more palatable candidate to win over center-leaning and disillusioned Dems.

[Suvorov]

It'll be interesting to see who decides to run in 2016.

Can Paul beat Cruz in the primaries? Does Cruz even have a prayer (pun intended) with "establishment Republican voters"?

Seems Paul would be the more palatable candidate to win over center-leaning and disillusioned Dems.

While I love pretty much everything coming out of the mouth of Cruz, my concern is this: isn't his wife a current/former lobbyist for Goldman/Sachs? :confused:

[RoyGBiv]

While I love pretty much everything coming out of the mouth of Cruz, my concern is this: isn't his wife a current/former lobbyist for Goldman/Sachs? :confused:

According to Wiki:

Cruz's wife is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker.

And her Bio at Houston.org: http://www.houston.org/about/board-staff.html#board/212727

Until you asked, I didn't realize he was married to such a heavyweight.
As for her being a liability, I'd say certainly no more so than Hillary was to Bill. Although the media won't be giving Mrs Cruz a pass.

[Suvorov]

According to Wiki:


And her Bio at Houston.org: http://www.houston.org/about/board-staff.html#board/212727

Until you asked, I didn't realize he was married to such a heavyweight.
As for her being a liability, I'd say certainly no more so than Hillary was to Bill. Although the media won't be giving Mrs Cruz a pass.

Well, I'm not at all suggesting that he/she are anywhere on the level of depravity as Bill and Hillary are. I just am of the belief that Wall Street banks have had far too much influence in US politics.

[Shellback]

Right on point!

[Drang]

Do either Cruz or Paul even have a prayer (pun intended) with "establishment Republican voters"?


Although the media won't be giving either Cruz or Paul a pass.

FIFY.

[RoyGBiv]

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/381726/tragedy-israel-rand-paul



The Obama administration responded with its condolences to the families and to the state of Israel, as well it should have. But it also called, as it always does in situations like this, for restraint on the part of Israel.

How many times must Israel hear this call? Children are murdered — please show restraint. Cafés and buses are bombed — please show restraint. Towns are victimized by hundreds of rockets — please show restraint while you bury your dead once again.

I think it is clear by now: Israel has shown remarkable restraint. It possesses a military with clear superiority over that of its Palestinian neighbors, yet it does not respond to threat after threat, provocation after provocation, with the type of force that would decisively end their conflict.

But sometimes restraint can work against you. Sometimes you just have to say, enough is enough.

....

I call for all aid to the Palestinian Authority — every penny — to be cut off. Not one more U.S. taxpayer dollar should flow to Hamas or to the Palestinian Authority as long as it is allied with Hamas.

Some say my position is too hard-line, too strong. To them I say, how many more children must die before it is acceptable to cut off the flow of money to terrorists?


Rand The Hawk.
Scored a few points with this one, IMO

[Sensei]

It'll be interesting to see who decides to run in 2016.

Can Paul beat Cruz in the primaries? Does Cruz even have a prayer (pun intended) with "establishment Republican voters"?

Seems Paul would be the more palatable candidate to win over center-leaning and disillusioned Dems.

I like many of their ideas (Lee, Cruz, and Paul) but neither has very much experience actually running a large organization. Ideology is only half the battle with the other half being the ability to herd the cats that make up Congress. I'm curious to see what the GOP can pull from its bag of governors.

[Shellback]

Rand The Hawk.
Scored a few points with this one, IMO

Very encouraging and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

[Corvus]

When Rand spoke out against requiring ID to vote he showed he is not that much different than the others.

[LittleLebowski]

When Rand spoke out against requiring ID to vote he showed he is not that much different than the others.

So, you think his filibuster and views on the NSA are part of the status quo?

[Suvorov]

It will be interesting to watch how Rand attempts to court (or at least not draw the ire of) the NeoCon faction of the GOP.

[Shellback]

When Rand spoke out against requiring ID to vote he showed he is not that much different than the others.

It wasn't so much speaking against voter ID laws as leaving it up to the states to decide. His intentions are clear; he wants to bring more minorities over to the Republican side and many feel offended by voter ID laws.

“I know about voter fraud and that there have to be rules and states have the ability to do it,” Paul said. “But I’ve also said Republicans should be emphasizing the good things we’re trying to do to try to help minorities vote instead of the things many minorities feel is directed at them, rightly or wrongly. … So I do object to overemphasizing something that is turning people off.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/rand-paul-voter-id-comments-106665.html#ixzz36d7u0ZKy

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Rand-Paul-voter-ID-suppression/2014/05/13/id/571162/

Sen. Rand Paul says he does not oppose the Republican Party's push for voter ID laws but doesn't think they should be over-emphasized.

The New York Times published a headline on Friday saying, "Paul Diverges From His Party Over Voter ID," but Paul said Tuesday that he was taken out of context.

Appearing on Fox News Channel's "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said he was saying that Republicans shouldn't make voter ID a primary issue in this year's elections. The GOP should take note that many black voters fear that voter ID is actually an attempt to suppress minority voting, he said.

"We're not trying to do that. In fact, I'm trying to restore voting rights for minorities who I think have unfairly had their voting rights taken away," Paul said. He pointed to his own efforts, along with those of the NAACP, to restore voting rights to minorities who have been convicted of non-violent crimes.

"There was a time in our past when the vote was suppressed," Paul said, noting that it was mostly Democrats who were guilty.

"But, for some reason, they think Republicans are part of this historical suppression of African-American votes. They think this is just another ploy," he said.

Republicans should acknowledge that perception in their attempt to reach more minority voters, he said.

Paul said he is keenly aware that voter fraud exists. His own father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, once lost an election by 200 votes in a contest in which 200,000 votes were cast, he said. About 3,000 of those votes were found to be illegal, he added.

"So, I'm very aware of voter fraud and don't think it's that unreasonable to show your driver's license."

[Sensei]

It wasn't so much speaking against voter ID laws as leaving it up to the states to decide. His intentions are clear; he wants to bring more minorities over to the Republican side and many feel offended by voter ID laws.


http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Rand-Paul-voter-ID-suppression/2014/05/13/id/571162/

He's going to struggle with this one if he thinks that he can deemphasize voter id to pacify the left or attract minorities. The left does not care if a particular position is a central part of the platform or deemphasized. They will use it to their advantage just like they used abortion against Romney (which was also "deemphasized"). Also, a neutral stance on voter id is not going to win over minorities and Paul has absolutely zero chance of winning over any significant portion of the free shit Army.

Paul would be much better off sticking to a conservative social agenda while maintaining a libertarian flavor on foreign policy issues. This is a great way for him to distinguish himself from the likes of Cruz and the rest of the mainstream GOP. In other words, he can be the choice for those who favor fiscal responsibility, free markets, and a very limited global foot print. He is doomed as soon as he starts trying to be everything to everybody.

[Corvus]

So, you think his filibuster and views on the NSA are part of the status quo?

I think he plays the game to his benefit. His views are more in line with mine than most in DC but at the same time he will switch in a second if he thinks it benefits him. How many seconds did it take him to to come out against Bundy when the racist hack job came out ? He did not waste any time investigating if it was true or the context of the statements.

[Shellback]

Paul would be much better off sticking to a conservative social agenda while maintaining a libertarian flavor on foreign policy issues. This is a great way for him to distinguish himself from the likes of Cruz and the rest of the mainstream GOP. In other words, he can be the choice for those who favor fiscal responsibility, free markets, and a very limited global foot print. He is doomed as soon as he starts trying to be everything to everybody.

I'm in agreement and think those are some of his most positive attributes.

[RoyGBiv]

Paul would be much better off sticking to a conservative social agenda while maintaining a libertarian flavor on foreign policy issues.

I think this is exactly the opposite of a winning strategy.
A libertarian social policy (keep the government out of my bedroom and my cell phone) and a slightly-hawkish foreign policy (reduced payments to foreign governments and a strong military, used judiciously).

[Shellback]

A libertarian social policy (keep the government out of my bedroom and my cell phone) and a slightly-hawkish foreign policy (reduced payments to foreign governments and a strong military, used judiciously).

I misread Sensei's reply but can't edit it. I'm in agreement with you here, but I also think that there's a lot of people who want to be ruled and have no concept of personal freedom.

[Sensei]

I think this is exactly the opposite of a winning strategy.
A libertarian social policy (keep the government out of my bedroom and my cell phone) and a slightly-hawkish foreign policy (reduced payments to foreign governments and a strong military, used judiciously).

Perhaps I should have said fiscal instead of social policy.

When it comes to issues of the bedroom, I really do not know any conservatives running for national office who want to regulate what happens behind closed bedroom doors. I'm sure there are some from the religious right on the state and local level who do this, but we are talking about a national election. However, if you are referring to abortion and gay marriage as an issues for the bedroom, well then we do disagree. Rand would be wise to listen to some of his father's speeches on abortion before he plans to convert on this issue (he is pro-life last I heard). Any flip-flop on this issue at this point in his career would be used to paint him as a fake - just like Romney. Perhaps gay marriage is a little less important and is an area where he can distinguish himself from the GOP pack.

[RoyGBiv]

Perhaps I should have said fiscal instead of social policy.
The difference between the two is not small.


When it comes to issues of the bedroom, I really do not know any conservatives running for national office who want to regulate what happens behind closed bedroom doors. I'm sure there are some from the religious right on the state and local level who do this, but we are talking about a national election. However, if you are referring to abortion and gay marriage as an issues for the bedroom, well then we do disagree. Rand would be wise to listen to some of his father's speeches on abortion before he plans to convert on this issue (he is pro-life last I heard). Any flip-flop on this issue at this point in his career would be used to paint him as a fake - just like Romney. Perhaps gay marriage is a little less important and is an area where he can distinguish himself from the GOP pack.
I would propose that a person can be BOTH pro-life AND pro-choice. I am, although maybe not by the traditional media definition.
This is EXACTLY what I mean by keeping government out of the bedroom. Pro-life advocacy can succeed in reducing abortions without using the force of government. In the end, a person will choose to abort regardless of how difficult the government makes it. CONVINCING (and providing alternatives), not legislating, is a far more powerful, longer-lasting solution. It's the people that don't have the patience to do that hard work and would prefer instead to impose their will on us via government force that we need to reeducate.

I don't want this to digress into an abortion discussion... please.
But it's a useful example of the difference between advocating (liberty) and forcing (tyranny).

[Drang]

I misread Sensei's reply but can't edit it. I'm in agreement with you here, but I also think that there's a lot of people who want to be ruled and have no concept of personal freedom.
Plenty of people who want personal freedom for themselves, but want their neighbor regulated.
Plenty of people who want #FREESTUFF! and don't care what they have to give up to get it.

[Spr1]

Plenty of people who want personal freedom for themselves, but want their neighbor regulated.
Plenty of people who want #FREESTUFF! and don't care what they have to give up to get it.

I would offer that, IMO, most of the folks who desire free stuff, have no clue what they are losing by making that choice.

[Sensei]

The difference between the two is not small.


I would propose that a person can be BOTH pro-life AND pro-choice. I am, although maybe not by the traditional media definition.
This is EXACTLY what I mean by keeping government out of the bedroom. Pro-life advocacy can succeed in reducing abortions without using the force of government. In the end, a person will choose to abort regardless of how difficult the government makes it. CONVINCING (and providing alternatives), not legislating, is a far more powerful, longer-lasting solution. It's the people that don't have the patience to do that hard work and would prefer instead to impose their will on us via government force that we need to reeducate.

I don't want this to digress into an abortion discussion... please.
But it's a useful example of the difference between advocating (liberty) and forcing (tyranny).

Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, ban on 2-way dildos, etc. have absolutely no place in the discussion of Presidential politics. These are purely issues for the states, and the President had absolutely zero control over the issue. Take for example abortion, there are only 2-ways that abortion could become illegal across the nation: a Constitutional Amendment which outlaws the procedure or a Constitutional Amendment that better clarifies the powers of States under the 10th Amendment. That latter does not even ban the procedure but simply throws it back to the states, and neither involves POTUS. Any federal law that tries to outlaw abortion will fall victim to the supremacy of Roe v. Wade as an interpretation of Rights protected by the Constitutional. Any new SCOTUS decision that overturns Roe v. Wade also simply throws it back to the states where some are surely going to allow the procedure.

Thus, my reason for equating social and economic policy positions is because the dominant threat to our existence as a nation is social spending and the welfare state. These ARE issues that POTUS can influence. Terms such as bedroom policy, woman's rights, and gay marriage are not only trivial to our predicament, but not germane to the office of the Presidency.

[Stephen]

Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, ban on 2-way dildos, etc. have absolutely no place in the discussion of Presidential politics.

Those issues shouldn't be a huge part of the discussion of Presidential politics, but they are. As much as I hate it, those issues completely define politics for millions of people. Any POTUS candidate is going to have to come up with a good strategy to deal with social issues. Its especially tricky for a GOP candidate since they have to try to attract a coalition of social conservatives and various other flavors of non-liberals.

[RoyGBiv]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/10/53-of-millennials-would-vote-for-a-soci2

[MDS]

Plenty of people who want #FREESTUFF! and don't care what they have to give up to get it.

This! This is the Great Irony of the human condition! How is it that so many people are not willing to pay for what they want - so much so that they're willing to give up anything in order to get free stuff?!?! How is it free if you have to give stuff up to get it?

Of course it's not free. It's on credit. With the best brains in the world juggling the credit card bills to prolong the "Free" Ride.

[Shellback]

Rand Paul pile on. (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/rand-paul-foreign-policy-108897.html)

If you had any doubts about how seriously some Republicans are taking the notion of a Rand Paul presidency, look at how far they’re going to shut down his views on foreign policy...

The preemptive strikes suggest that many in GOP fear Paul is winning the foreign policy argument with the American people — and that that could make him a formidable candidate in 2016. After all, second-tier presidential hopefuls don’t usually get shouted down this way...

Paul, however, says the real problem in Iraq is that “there aren’t that many good choices right now” — and that he’s not about to call for sending the troops back in when, in his view, the Iraqis didn’t fight very hard for their own security.

“I ask Gov. Perry: How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? How many Texan mothers and fathers will Gov. Perry ask to send their children to fight in Iraq?” Paul wrote...

[RoyGBiv]

Rand Paul pile on. (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/rand-paul-foreign-policy-108897.html)

Violation of Reagan's 11th Commandment.
Really chaps my ass.

Here you have a guy (Paul) that is actually connecting with a voting block that went way Left in the past 2 Presidential elections... and you're calling him an idiot.
So all those people, like me, that like a lot (not all) of what he's saying are going to vote for WHOM, exactly? McCain and Romney? Santorum? OMFG!

It makes my head hurt.

[LOKNLOD]

Interesting that some GOPers are piling on Paul while I'm getting emails from the RNC for a chance to win lunch with Paul Ryan and Rand Paul and Reince Preibus.

[Josh Runkle]

Violation of Reagan's 11th Commandment.
Really chaps my ass.

Here you have a guy (Paul) that is actually connecting with a voting block that went way Left in the past 2 Presidential elections... and you're calling him an idiot.
So all those people, like me, that like a lot (not all) of what he's saying are going to vote for WHOM, exactly? McCain and Romney? Santorum? OMFG!

It makes my head hurt.

I would disagree with the "left-right" assessment, whereas it would be fair to say he went more towards the democrats side of the issue.

Take something like legalizing marijuana. It's in the democrats camp, the republicans are very much against it, however it is still a "right wing" issue. It holds no immediately perceivable benefits for society. It is completely about individual, personal freedom. Aside from the fact that gun ownership, IMO, has immediately perceivable societal benefits, it is a very similar argument when it comes to the personal freedom argument. Frankly, as gun owners, we rarely make the case for gun ownership as "A well regulated militia", instead we make the argument about "the right of the people". If Rand Paul is pro-legalizing-recreational-drugs, it's an anti-republican stance, but it is still a right-wing stance that frankly makes him less of a hypocrite.

Same with being pro gay-marriage. Makes him less of a republican, but less of a hypocrite and more right-wing: should the government be in the business of saying who's marriage is valid? Marriage has a history in connection with religion and tradition. If "God" or "family" or "[insert religious group]" or "[insert social group]" validate the marriage, then aside from recording marriages, what business should the government have in validating those marriages? Again: individual, personal freedom issue. (And on a personal note: the tax reductions to gay couples would mean nicer restaurants and art galleries in my neighborhood [sorry to stereotype, but let's face it, it's true], which would only boost the value of homes in my area.)

Rand Paul is simply very right-wing when it comes to personal freedom, and less of a hypocrite than his colleagues.

[RevolverRob]

Rick Perry - aka Governor Good Hair - Is full of hot air and wouldn't understand foreign policy even if he had been raised by Henry Kissinger. And don't start with, "He runs the state with the largest border shared with a foreign country" either. If you know anything about Texas politics you'll know that the governor of the state of Texas has virtually no political power beyond the occasional declaration of emergency, stays of execution, and the ability to wield a veto stamp once in a great while.

On the flipside isolationism is not a viable solution in a post-modern-global world. Whether we like it or not our economy, country, and culture is globalized and isolationism has no place in a modern foreign policy. That said, Paul's cautious, pragmatic, approach to foreign policy is better than the reckless abandon shown by well...every prior administration since JFK. It would be nice to actually...I dunno consider the consequences of military, paramilitary, intelligence agency intervention in other countries, before we actually did it. Look, I'm not saying that the U.S. is indirectly responsible for the most recent political instability in Central America...but I'm also not not saying that.

I like Paul, I don't agree with everything he says, but he resonates with my wookie-suit and desire to buck the current trend of deep-seeded political puppets that have sat in the White House recently.

-Rob

PS: The GOP would do well to remember that you know...not everyone is far right or far left. There are a number of us that sit near the center of the room watching the right and left halves go loony-tunes.

[JHC]

Rick Perry - aka Governor Good Hair - Is full of hot air and wouldn't understand foreign policy even if he had been raised by Henry Kissinger. And don't start with, "He runs the state with the largest border shared with a foreign country" either. If you know anything about Texas politics you'll know that the governor of the state of Texas has virtually no political power beyond the occasional declaration of emergency, stays of execution, and the ability to wield a veto stamp once in a great while.

On the flipside isolationism is not a viable solution in a post-modern-global world. Whether we like it or not our economy, country, and culture is globalized and isolationism has no place in a modern foreign policy. That said, Paul's cautious, pragmatic, approach to foreign policy is better than the reckless abandon shown by well...every prior administration since

.

Some skeptical analysts have concluded that the constitutional weakness of the Texas governor is part of what makes much of what Perry has done in TX all the more impressive.

But he jumped the shark throwing "isolationist" labels around. That term really only applied to a hard core in the pre-WW2 era and with a few outlier exceptions I'd say the spectrum just ranges from less proactive to very proactive interventionist with their definitions of "national interest" varying to one degree or another.

This guy compared and contrasted Paul and Perry on their competing claims to the Reagan mantle which is popular but may not be the ideal to aspire to anymore. IDK. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/what-would-reagan-do-in-iraq/374391/

[jc000]

Same with being pro gay-marriage. Makes him less of a republican, but less of a hypocrite and more right-wing...

I don't think Rand Paul is pro gay-marriage by any stretch.

[RevolverRob]

Some skeptical analysts have concluded that the constitutional weakness of the Texas governor is part of what makes much of what Perry has done in TX all the more impressive.

I don't want to diverge this thread by talking about Perry too much. I've lived in Texas the entire time of Rick Perry's tenure as governor of Texas. He has done almost nothing. The economic moves in this state were driven largely by political donors and a Republican led senate with the help of a well written and strong Texas constitution that requires a balanced budget in this state.



But he jumped the shark throwing "isolationist" labels around. That term really only applied to a hard core in the pre-WW2 era and with a few outlier exceptions I'd say the spectrum just ranges from less proactive to very proactive interventionist with their definitions of "national interest" varying to one degree or another.

Entirely true, very few understand the historical inertia behind the term "isolationist".



This guy compared and contrasted Paul and Perry on their competing claims to the Reagan mantle which is popular but may not be the ideal to aspire to anymore. IDK. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/what-would-reagan-do-in-iraq/374391/

Tough thing here. Most young voters and the future of politics in this country, were not alive or were barely alive during Reagan's administration and remember Clinton in a much more fond and nostalgic light. Arguably, two terms of G.W. Bush did more harm to the GOP in this country than two terms of Clinton or Obama have, because the only GOP exposure in the life time of young voters is Bush. The GOP would be smart to push for a young and fresh candidate like Paul that might resonate with fence centers or those who view the GOP as too far right in the ideological spectrum to vote for them.

Or let me flip it around - My entire family likes Rand Paul and that's never happened that I can recall. Seriously, my mother voted for Clinton, Gore, and Obama and my father has I think not voted for a Democrat since LBJ. Family holidays might actually be peaceful.

[Josh Runkle]

I don't think Rand Paul is pro gay-marriage by any stretch.

I shouldn't say he's pro-gay marriage. I should say that he believes that the federal gov't should have no business validating marriages.

"Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but he believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.[42][43] He has said he thought that the Supreme Court's ruling in Windsor v. United States, which struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage at a federal level (as between a man and a woman), was appropriate.[44]

In April 2013, in an interview with the National Review, he said, "I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” and “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”[45]"


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rand_Paul

My point was that he doesn't simply take a stance because others in a party take that stance. He appears to try to separate his personal feelings from his political ones, and appears to side more with personal freedom (or, in this case, as he does in many cases, state freedom) than he does with a party.

[RoyGBiv]

My entire family likes Rand Paul and that's never happened that I can recall. Seriously, my mother voted for Clinton, Gore, and Obama and my father has I think not voted for a Democrat since LBJ. Family holidays might actually be peaceful.
The GOP is, so far, failing to realize the potential of INCLUDING Rand Paul.
Casting him out is a losing proposition.

[David S.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZR0QsJsGQA&feature=kp

[JHC]

Since weed, gay marriage and abortion are so intertwined as libertarian hot buttons - where does Rand stand etc and Perry was pulled in; he too seems to be adapting to the times:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/23/perry-marijuana-davos/4803929/

Between Perry and Paul I'm hands down in the Rick Perry camp. Just because of the more mainstream conservative Republican position, biography, executive experience, and of course passion for guns. And I'm extremely unimpressed with the libertarian point of view applied to actually governing a diverse country of 300+ million people and the world's superpower and hegemon. If Paul had been a governor he would be more competitive to me. I always chose governors over senators.

Paul is wicked smart though. His ability to communicate and connect with young people is really impressive (ie his amazing reception at Berkley). He's a helluva communicator and I enjoy in depth interviews of him for the most part. In recent months he seems to have gotten a little twisted around; I assume trying to posture for additional constituencies.

But take his tortured explanations criticizing the GOP for too much focus on voter ID. It was weird. It's a big issue but it hasn't dominated the GOPs focus like Obamacare, Benghazi, IRS, or a few other topics. And certainly not at the national level. So he must have picked it to pander to minorities. Yet that would be weird since a lot of polling shows minorities support voter ID also.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm extremely unimpressed with the libertarian point of view applied to actually governing a diverse country of 300+ million people.
I'm not certain from your comment whether you're talking big-L or little-l L(l)ibertarian? (yes, i see you used a little "l", but did you mean it? http://texaschlforum.com/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif )

If you listen to the vid posted by JG above, you'll get the answers to your "weed, gay marriage, abortion" question. I suspect you'll find his answers rational and reasonable.

Is it better to govern a diverse country from a perspective that fails to recognize individual Liberties? (both the D's and the R's are guilty as charged)

IMO, Rand Paul is not Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

[JHC]

I'm not certain from your comment whether you're talking big-L or little-l L(l)ibertarian? (yes, i see you used a little "l", but did you mean it? http://texaschlforum.com/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif )

If you listen to the vid posted by JG above, you'll get the answers to your "weed, gay marriage, abortion" question. I suspect you'll find his answers rational and reasonable.

Is it better to govern a diverse country from a perspective that fails to recognize individual Liberties? (both the D's and the R's are guilty as charged)

IMO, Rand Paul is not Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

I meant upper case L - as in this site full of their policy positions - http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Homeland_Security.htm but I worry for the little L souls out there. ;)

Rand can think and Rand can talk. I laid on the accolades pretty think back there.

[RevolverRob]

JHC - You might want to evaluate what executive experience is gained running the state of Texas. I mean that sincerely, the Texas governor is very weak, because of the nature of our post-reconstruction era constitution. The Lt. Gov sets the agenda in the state senate and deals with most of the major legislative issues. Texas has been running rather smoothly since the Ann Richards days and Perry more or less continued that trend. In other words it's not hard to steer a ship that has a nice comfortable course set and is running fine, because the predecessors maintained it. Admittedly, Perry did his share to continue the maintenance, but again largely this is a state run by the legislature with a governor to veto things now and again and to shake (or not shake) hands with visiting politicians.

I've been a resident of the state of Texas my whole life, and like any good Texan I would readily endorse my fellow countrymen, but I honestly do not feel that Rick Perry is qualified to lead the most powerful nation in the world. The issues he has tackled or failed to tackle in this state indicate to me that his is more of the same poor quality of leadership that we have had recently in this country. His attempts to expand Texas government and failures of his to adequately address corruption and curb poor spending (as long as it was by big-R Republicans) tells me he likes his politics first and the people he ostensibly serves second. Finally, having personally met the man and having a wife that formerly worked for him at the state capital, I can tell you personally that I would probably use a fire extinguisher to put him out if he were on fire, but I'd have to consider it first. That said, I try to set aside my personal feelings and evaluate his qualifications.

So far I've seen Rick Perry and the GOP attack Rand Paul and Rand Paul just continues doing his thing. I like a man that doesn't get mired in the words of his detractors.

That's enough Perry - Let's get back to Rand - Where is Paul's stance on important things, like reducing welfare and fighting government corruption?

-Rob

[Jay Cunningham]

Rand Paul

lol

suckers

[Dagga Boy]

I also like Rand Paul, and far more than his father. With that said, I am really hoping that Dr. Ben Carson gets dragged in. It would be nice to have an adult in the room for a change.

[RoyGBiv]

Rand Paul

lol

suckers
What u got?

[Jay Cunningham]

What u got?

Nothing. I'm not offering you hope.

[Jay Cunningham]

More correctly: I have no hope to offer.

[JHC]

JHC - You might want to evaluate what executive experience is gained running the state of Texas. I mean that sincerely, the Texas governor is very weak, because of the nature of our post-reconstruction era constitution. The Lt. Gov sets the agenda in the state senate and deals with most of the major legislative issues. Texas has been running rather smoothly since the Ann Richards days and Perry more or less continued that trend. In other words it's not hard to steer a ship that has a nice comfortable course set and is running fine, because the predecessors maintained it. Admittedly, Perry did his share to continue the maintenance, but again largely this is a state run by the legislature with a governor to veto things now and again and to shake (or not shake) hands with visiting politicians.

I've been a resident of the state of Texas my whole life, and like any good Texan I would readily endorse my fellow countrymen, but I honestly do not feel that Rick Perry is qualified to lead the most powerful nation in the world. The issues he has tackled or failed to tackle in this state indicate to me that his is more of the same poor quality of leadership that we have had recently in this country. His attempts to expand Texas government and failures of his to adequately address corruption and curb poor spending (as long as it was by big-R Republicans) tells me he likes his politics first and the people he ostensibly serves second. Finally, having personally met the man and having a wife that formerly worked for him at the state capital, I can tell you personally that I would probably use a fire extinguisher to put him out if he were on fire, but I'd have to consider it first. That said, I try to set aside my personal feelings and evaluate his qualifications.

So far I've seen Rick Perry and the GOP attack Rand Paul and Rand Paul just continues doing his thing. I like a man that doesn't get mired in the words of his detractors.

That's enough Perry - Let's get back to Rand - Where is Paul's stance on important things, like reducing welfare and fighting government corruption?

-Rob

A lot of Texans disagree with you.

IMO most of the electorate is too consumed with what potential candidates say and how they say it vs reviewing a resume and body of work to hire a CEO.

[LittleLebowski]

What u got?

Realistic cynicism.

[RoyGBiv]

A lot of Texans disagree with you.
Perry will not get my vote in the primary unless the only other guy running is Christie.
Perry's not a bad guy, just not a President.


IMO most of the electorate is too consumed with what potential candidates say and how they say it vs reviewing a resume and body of work to hire a CEO.
I think you're giving the general public too much credit.

[JHC]

Perry will not get my vote in the primary unless the only other guy running is Christie.
Perry's not a bad guy, just not a President.


I think you're giving the general public too much credit.


Roger that. Scott Walker is actually tops on my wish list presently. I love Perry's schtick but it may tend to scare the horses (separately from any other issues some may have with him).

[MDS]

Realistic cynicism.

Fair enough! In the spirit of realistic cynicism, how should a personal-freedom-loving American vote and why?

[Jay Cunningham]

Fair enough! In the spirit of realistic cynicism, how should a personal-freedom-loving American vote and why?

You shouldn't.

Not in national elections anyway, perhaps with the exception of your Representative.

Focus your efforts on local politics.

[Sensei]

I also like Rand Paul, and far more than his father. With that said, I am really hoping that Dr. Ben Carson gets dragged in. It would be nice to have an adult in the room for a change.

Ben Carson has a lot of good ideas on healthcare and personal responsibility. However, he has very little experience running large organizations (he was Chief of the Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Hopkins but never a Department Chair). He also had some, shall we say, "progressive" views on firearms which he let slip a couple of years ago. However, those views evolved to a conservative stance once he realized that being labeled a gun grabber would do him in for the GOP nomination. He is certainly not the worst GOP candidate, but I'm not convinced that all of his instincts are in the right place or that he has the temperament for the job.


You shouldn't.

Not in national elections anyway, perhaps with the exception of your Representative.

Focus your efforts on local politics.

I'm not sure that the lesson of the past 8 years is that national politics is insignificant. Politics was once all local. However, 3/4 of all government spending is now federal (as opposed to 1/4 in the early 20th century), and I don't see Uncle Sam relinquishing control to the states in the near future.

[Dagga Boy]

Dr. Ben Carson has several things going for him I like. He knows that he isn't an expert on everything and would need to surround himself with solid people who are and listen to them. That is key for me. He is not an insider, and I have a suspicion that he would in fact surround himself with some real bright lights. Look at what our current President has surrounded himself with, and you will see why we are where we are.
His other BIG plus is how he talks. Its never personal. He never gets excited or angry. He is a logical thoughtful thinker and debater and most importantly, he has the ability to referee the children that this country has elected to represent us. It was a gift that President Reagan had. It was actually a Clinton positive as well. The problem we have now is that there is nobody working to allow all the branches of government to work together. They are all going around each other. It has to stop and I really think a non-partisan conservative who can at least reason with the progressives is what is needed. Nov. 2014 is going to be critical in that the Republicans must get control of the Senate to make something happen. At that point, I don't really want a Republican insider running the show either or we end up with the same over-spending and over reaching issues we have now, just from a different angle.
Otherwise......the circling of the drain will continue.

[RoyGBiv]

His other BIG plus is how he talks. Its never personal. He never gets excited or angry. He is a logical thoughtful thinker and debater and most importantly, he has the ability to referee the children that this country has elected to represent us. It was a gift that President Reagan had. It was actually a Clinton positive as well.
Speaking objectively, I agree with you. I like Carson for a lot of the same reasons. Speaking subjectively, every time I listen to him speak I feel like he's talking down to me. Maybe it's the doctor thing, maybe it's his cadence, but, I find listening to him very off-putting, even though I generally agree with him. I realize it's style over substance, so I'm continuing to listen.

The main reason I would not vote for him is the complete lack of government experience. As much as government insiders are a very big part of the problem, without any inside baseball skills getting anything accomplished will be impossible. Carson, I believe, would run the risk of being the same kind of executive as Obama, having no ability to work the system and instead be left standing outside using his pen and his cell phone, albeit to undo much of what Obama has done. Maybe I'm just gun-shy about hiring another inexperienced executive, but I'm much more inclined to support a Governor with a positive, proven track record.

[jc000]

Since when did becoming an 'experienced executive' become a requirement for leadership? Is that what Thomas Jefferson was? Moreso than a Rand Paul?

[RoyGBiv]

Since when did becoming an 'experienced executive' become a requirement for leadership? Is that what Thomas Jefferson was? Moreso than a Rand Paul?
Simpler times. Not a fair comparison, although I get what your saying and I don't completely disagree... But if I'm asked to choose between Scott Walker and Ben Carson, Walker has a huge leg up, IMO, because of his relevant experience. YMMV.

[jc000]

Simpler times. Not a fair comparison, although I get what your saying and I don't completely disagree... But if I'm asked to choose between Scott Walker and Ben Carson, Walker has a huge leg up, IMO, because of his relevant experience. YMMV.

I only argue, because I think Rand Paul (who I'm currently pretty pissed at, BTW) would make an excellent leader because, like his father, he presents a different, compelling take on our constitutional principles that is both modern, yet in line with the founders' spirit.

Plus I think he has the personality to motivate and inspire people. People are going to try and paint him as a hater, but I think that will be tough to stick to him.

[JHC]

Since when did becoming an 'experienced executive' become a requirement for leadership? Is that what Thomas Jefferson was? Moreso than a Rand Paul?

Its probably visa versa. Leadership skills are evaluable to be a successful (truly, not in the crony capitalism sphere) executive. But executive experience is just short hand for having actually run things vs speechifying. Jefferson and most of the Founders were very accomplished men.

[Sensei]

Its probably visa versa. Leadership skills are evaluable to be a successful (truly, not in the crony capitalism sphere) executive. But executive experience is just short hand for having actually run things vs speechifying. Jefferson and most of the Founders were very accomplished men.

Indeed they were.


Since when did becoming an 'experienced executive' become a requirement for leadership? Is that what Thomas Jefferson was? Moreso than a Rand Paul?

Jefferson's executive experience prior to taking office in 1801 included being the Govenor of VA, Minister to France, Secretary of State, and Vice President. This is in addition to being a delegate to the Second Congressional Congress, delegate to the Congress of Confederation, and leading various counsels that basically formed our nation during a time of war. The last person to have that much street cred prior to taking office was Eisenhower.

FYI, Washington and Adams also had vast amounts of executive experience before leading our nation.

[jc000]

Jefferson's executive experience prior to taking office in 1801 included being the Govenor of VA, Minister to France, Secretary of State, and Vice President. This is in addition to being a delegate to the Second Congressional Congress, delegate to the Congress of Confederation, and leading various counsels that basically formed our nation during a time of war. The last person to have that much street cred prior to taking office was Eisenhower.

Jefferson was the primary architect of the Declaration well before he held most of the positions in your list. While he was an accomplished man at that point, I would say his leadership ability was independent of what jobs or titles he held.

[RoyGBiv]

Jefferson was the primary architect of the Declaration well before he held most of the positions in your list. While he was an accomplished man at that point, I would say his leadership ability was independent of what jobs or titles he held.

There are many people great at expressing their thoughts on a piece of paper, or on the internet. There's not doubt in my mind that our current president can express himself eloquently, when his giv-a-kitten meter gets tickled. But, there's a vast difference between those that SAY the right things and those that have the clarity of purpose together with the tactical skills to move large organizations towards fulfillment of those same goals. Even the mediocre actor that was our 40th president was also SAG president, a spokesperson for GE and Governor of CA for 8 years. BHO never held a private sector job, was a state senator from IL and 2 years a US senator that voted "present" more often than anything else. It was so completely obvious that he was unqualified that it still boggles the mind that he got elected.

Mr. Paul has many correct things to say... and he's showing some leadership, but his resume is lacking... whether I can vote for him will ultimately depend largely upon what my other choices are. Just because I like what he says doesn't mean he's shown me he's got the skills to lead us there. Talk is not do.

[BobLoblaw]

Getting in office is just as important if not more so than getting all his checkmarks on the ideal leader list. The average citizen listens more than they research and I'm more concerned with getting fence-sitter votes than anything. Perry won't get those. Carson or Paul have a much better shot. If the past 2 elections tell us anything it's that talk can outweigh experience. Once you're in office, your advisers do a lot of the legwork. Paul's comments in the past year or so have caused me frequent head-scratching so while I don't put too much faith in him due to his recent statements, I think his positives outweigh his negatives (especially when it comes to financial matters). Cruz has been awfully quiet (compared to his normal outspoken self). I'd love to see what's on his mind.

[Sensei]

Its probably visa versa. Leadership skills are evaluable to be a successful (truly, not in the crony capitalism sphere) executive. But executive experience is just short hand for having actually run things vs speechifying. Jefferson and most of the Founders were very accomplished men.


Getting in office is just as important if not more so than getting all his checkmarks on the ideal leader list. The average citizen listens more than they research and I'm more concerned with getting fence-sitter votes than anything. Perry won't get those. Carson or Paul have a much better shot. If the past 2 elections tell us anything it's that talk can outweigh experience. Once you're in office, your advisers do a lot of the legwork. Paul's comments in the past year or so have caused me frequent head-scratching so while I don't put too much faith in him due to his recent statements, I think his positives outweigh his negatives (especially when it comes to financial matters). Cruz has been awfully quiet (compared to his normal outspoken self). I'd love to see what's on his mind.

The reason why your head itches is because Rand, as a US Senator from KY, is beholden to a much more diverse population than his father (or any other libertarian candidate who never won statewide or national office) who was responsible to only a Congressional district - in TX no less. Rand knows that he must balance his libertarian and conservative positions to keep his Senate seat or be competitive for national office; he has to be more things to many people. He will have to compromise - gasp! This dramatically increases the chance that he will take a position that is contrary to his libertarian orthodoxy.

[Josh Runkle]

When the alternative might be Hillary, why wouldn't we thank God, crying on our hands and knees and promising our firstborn if any of the candidates mentioned get elected?

[Sensei]

When the alternative might be Hillary, why wouldn't we thank God, crying on our hands and knees and promising our firstborn if any of the candidates mentioned get elected?

I think that we all agree that Paul, Lee, or Cruz would be immeasurably better than Hildabeast. The question at hand is who is best equipped to lead the country to prosperity - legislators who are ideologically pure but without experience, or executives who have been tainted by the need to compromise but have a record of success?

Perhaps Paul would be best served by running for Governor of KY before seeking national executive office...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Governors don't necessarily make good decision makers. Sometimes when they look someone in the eye and look at their soul, they misjudge it. Or they invade irrelevant countries. Being governor of Georgia or Arkansas didn't work out, according to some. Being governor of NY did work for Teddy R.

Paul is launching a Pro-Israel campaign to counter the claim of isolationism and his father's suspect history.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/inside-rand-paul-s-jewish-charm-offensive-20140720

[RoyGBiv]

Rand Paul: Republicans Can Only Win if "They Become More Live and Let Live" (http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/07/23/sen-rand-paul-on-silicon-valley-innovati)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gftp95SqFm4

[MDS]

The thing about experienced executives is they tend to get things done. Politically difficult things, like Obamacare. (Oh, wait, that was accomplished by someone who was sort of the opposite of an experienced, not ideological executive. But I'll ignore that because right now I'm not making the point that an inexperienced, ideologically pure executive can certainly get a lot done.)

I'm totally ok with an ideologically pure executive who only accomplishes a few things.

[Sensei]

Signing bills into laws is not being an executive. Being an executive is the organized and skillful execution of policy after it is passed. I am anxious for a President who is going to be very active at limiting the size of government just like a CEO who is downsizing their company. For example, we need someone willing to reign in organizations such as the EPA, ATF, HHS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, etc. Right now, we've got way too many federal laws on the books and too many agencies to fund. It's time that we had a POTUS who works with Congress to pass laws that actually disassemble the Washington machine.

As unlikely as this sounds, it had better happen. If we continue down this path of federal growth we will experience a very hard landing within 20 years. By hard landing I mean a collapse of basic social services which makes Detroit look like Calcutta.

[Shellback]

Signing bills into laws is not being an executive. Being an executive is the organized and skillful execution of policy after it is passed. I am anxious for a President who is going to be very active at limiting the size of government just like a CEO who is downsizing their company. For example, we need someone willing to reign in organizations such as the EPA, ATF, HHS, Department of Education, Department of Energy, etc. Right now, we've got way too many federal laws on the books and too many agencies to fund. It's time that we had a POTUS who works with Congress to pass laws that actually disassemble the Washington machine.

As unlikely as this sounds, it had better happen. If we continue down this path of federal growth we will experience a very hard landing within 20 years. By hard landing I mean a collapse of basic social services which makes Detroit look like Calcutta.

I like the cut of your jib.

[MDS]

Signing bills into laws is not being an executive.

You think Obamacare would have passed without the dedicated and arguably deft maneuvering of the executive? There's a reason it's not called ClintonCare...

[RoyGBiv]

You think Obamacare would have passed without the dedicated and arguably deft maneuvering of the executive? There's a reason it's not called ClintonCare...
Do you think Obamacare is an accomplishment, in the sens of "something the country wants and has a real chance of being successful"?
I think you're confusing "Politically astute ideologue" with "Capable executive" and "faithfully execute the laws....".

We get that the Petty Tyrant is SMART (as in smartass), but he is clearly an unfit executive. Even his own namesake legislation is a failure, unless we're talking about it as a wedge instead of a healthcare plan.

[Alpha Sierra]

You think Obamacare would have passed without the dedicated and arguably deft maneuvering of the executive? There's a reason it's not called ClintonCare...

If you think obamacare is a manifestation of a sucessful executive, well then.........

[Alpha Sierra]

If we continue down this path of federal growth we will experience a very hard landing within 20 years. By hard landing I mean a collapse of basic social services which makes Detroit look like Calcutta.

Might be just what this country needs to defecate the last 50 years of social/governmental policy once and for all. If it results in a realignment of the states, so much the better.

[MDS]

Do you think Obamacare is an accomplishment, in the sens of "something the country wants and has a real chance of being successful"?
I think you're confusing "Politically astute ideologue" with "Capable executive" and "faithfully execute the laws...."


If you think obamacare is a manifestation of a sucessful executive, well then.........

Dudes. This is pistol-forum.com. Let's live up to that standard of discussion.

Look more carefully at what I wrote - I never said Obamacare was a good law. In fact I think it's stupid and reckless, a scheme that will deteriorate the health care most Americans receive and spend untold trillions doing so, born of an evil willingness on the part of government and industry to exploit the ignorance and naïveté of a large part of the American voting public.

But it's also a fact that the left has been trying to pass this kind of healthcare reform for a very long time. Clinton, a seasoned executive with no less ruthless partner than Hilary, failed spectacularly. Obama managed to get it through. These are facts, not opinions. Based on these facts, I conclude:

1. I like it when executives fail at getting stuff done. Passing sweeping legislation should be really hard. An ideologue like Rand strikes me as someone who will fight to make this true, even if it means he can't make all the sweeping changes he would like. I can't recall that quote, about not getting cocky when your guy is in power, because soon enough your worst enemies will be in power and you better have set strict limits to that power before then...

2. The sum total of Obama's executive experience was president of the Harvard Law Review. Nevertheless, he has been able to make a lot of changes during his presidency, sweeping changes that were difficult to push through. Whether we think those changes were for better or for worse, it behooves us to acknowledge the accomplishment. The man set out to pass a bill, fought hard, fought well, and passed it. If we were talking about Reagan, or about a bill to repeal the NFA, I'd still be nervous about trusting a human with that much discretion. Of course, there would also be no controversy, no drama, and I wouldn't be here because I'd cancel my internet to save up for guns. ;)

[JHC]

You think Obamacare would have passed without the dedicated and arguably deft maneuvering of the executive? There's a reason it's not called ClintonCare...

There was little deftness evident. Dems controlled the House and Senate and it was rammed through on a straight party line vote. No deftness whatsoever. It's thoroughly revealed that beyond the basic theme, the WH - esp Obama had little involvement with the bill. He outsourced to Reid/Pelosi Inc. Crappy executive execution was evident in the long project of getting it ready for launch which failed like a big dog.

[MDS]

There was little deftness evident. Dems controlled the House and Senate and it was rammed through on a straight party line vote. No deftness whatsoever. It's thoroughly revealed that beyond the basic theme, the WH - esp Obama had little involvement with the bill. He outsourced to Reid/Pelosi Inc. Crappy executive execution was evident in the long project of getting it ready for launch which failed like a big dog.

The deftness was not technical, it was political. Managing public perceptions, getting industry on board. It's my opinion that Obama is a master of those arts, and they are more important in today's presidency than any other skill set. You can outsource the technical aspects of government - for better or for worse - but if the president doesn't put the right face to it (or should I say faces, plural, because the messaging was certainly, ah, "dynamic") it won't pass. That party-line voting you mentioned - that kind of party discipline is not maintained without deft. I'm not saying Obama did it alone, and anyway this conversation was never about Obama - it was about choosing the next president.

I'm saying that I've given up on the prospect of choosing a "seasoned, capable executive" to run the country the way I think it should be run. I'm more in favor of choosing an "ideologically pure" president who's first priority is to limit the damage that future presidents can do to my everyday life.

[Alpha Sierra]

The deftness was not technical, it was political. Managing public perceptions, getting industry on board. It's my opinion that Obama is a master of those arts, and they are more important in today's presidency than any other skill set. You can outsource the technical aspects of government - for better or for worse - but if the president doesn't put the right face to it (or should I say faces, plural, because the messaging was certainly, ah, "dynamic") it won't pass. That party-line voting you mentioned - that kind of party discipline is not maintained without deft. I'm not saying Obama did it alone, and anyway this conversation was never about Obama - it was about choosing the next president.

I'm saying that I've given up on the prospect of choosing a "seasoned, capable executive" to run the country the way I think it should be run. I'm more in favor of choosing an "ideologically pure" president who's first priority is to limit the damage that future presidents can do to my everyday life.

Having a majority of his party in both houses, Obama did not need to convince anyone outside the progressive rank and file. And by the same token the insurance industry saw the writing on the wall and got in front of it.

Doesn't take much political skill when the stars align and you got an easy ride in front of you.

[Josh Runkle]

Having a majority of his party in both houses, Obama did not need to convince anyone outside the progressive rank and file. And by the same token the insurance industry saw the writing on the wall and got in front of it.

Doesn't take much political skill when the stars align and you got an easy ride in front of you.

Probably not as easy as we think. Votes were shifting every day. Some Dems knew they'd lose their seat if they voted yes. Dem leadership had to make bold-faced lies to promise people they'd make it worth their while if they towed the party line. It was honestly hard for them to get it passed. Can't stand them, but let's not make it look like they had a cakewalk either.

[RoyGBiv]

Probably not as easy as we think. Votes were shifting every day. Some Dems knew they'd lose their seat if they voted yes. Dem leadership had to make bold-faced lies to promise people they'd make it worth their while if they towed the party line. It was honestly hard for them to get it passed. Can't stand them, but let's not make it look like they had a cakewalk either.

The Roadrunner was also "crafty". Didn't make him a leader.

[MDS]

The Roadrunner was also "crafty". Didn't make him a leader.

My point exactly. I don't want my president to be too crafty, even if (unlike Obama) they use that craftiness to pass bills I happen to like. Hence my approval of Rand Paul's brand of idealism.

[JHC]

Probably not as easy as we think. Votes were shifting every day. Some Dems knew they'd lose their seat if they voted yes. Dem leadership had to make bold-faced lies to promise people they'd make it worth their while if they towed the party line. It was honestly hard for them to get it passed. Can't stand them, but let's not make it look like they had a cakewalk either.

That's not how I saw it. Dems controlled the House and Senate and with minimal effort rammed Obamacare through. Obama outsourced most of it all to Reid and Pelosi. Not much from him on it at all but grandstanding speeches ad nauseum. But it was on his executive watch to launch it which he failed at like a big dog. His leadership and executive deficiencies showed big time..

[JHC]

My point exactly. I don't want my president to be too crafty, even if (unlike Obama) they use that craftiness to pass bills I happen to like. Hence my approval of Rand Paul's brand of idealism.

He's not my top pick from possible primary contenders but if it came to the general election I'd camp out to vote for him in Nov 2016

[MDS]

That's not how I saw it. Dems controlled the House and Senate and with minimal effort rammed Obamacare through. Obama outsourced most of it all to Reid and Pelosi. Not much from him on it at all but grandstanding speeches ad nauseum. But it was on his executive watch to launch it which he failed at like a big dog. His leadership and executive deficiencies showed big time..

Fair enough, we can disagree about how difficult it was to pass. But if it was as easy as you say, with a democratic majority, why didn't they pass, say, awb2.0?

As for the website launch, I have some insight into that and from where I'm standing it looks like the administration won a lot more than it lost by giving certain elements enough rope to hang themselves. And damn the collateral damage, a couple of vendors used as scapegoats is all in a day's work. After all, this is chess not checkers, right?

[MDS]

He's not my top pick from possible primary contenders but if it came to the general election I'd camp out to vote for him in Nov 2016

Quoted For Smiley. :D If that day comes I'll loan you my tent.

[Alpha Sierra]

That's not how I saw it. Dems controlled the House and Senate and with minimal effort rammed Obamacare through. Obama outsourced most of it all to Reid and Pelosi. Not much from him on it at all but grandstanding speeches ad nauseum. But it was on his executive watch to launch it which he failed at like a big dog. His leadership and executive deficiencies showed big time..
Your analysis is spot on.

[Sensei]

I like the cut of your jib.

The shear number of Federal laws on the books has become a very real threat to freedom. We have reached a point where most citizens can be massively fined, imprisoned, or inconvenienced by burdensome investigation for breaking any number of obscure laws pertaining to the environment, taxes, political contributions, etc. For example, a Wyoming man faces $75K fine for building a stock pond on his private property that the EPA determined was in violation of the CWA. In addition, the penalties are so disproportionate that defendants often feel compelled to take coercive plea bargains or "deals" to avoid catastrophic judgements.

The most insidious aspect of this situation is the resulting selective enforcement that must occur since the Feds can't possibly regulate everybody. Thus, the party in power gets to decide which rules will be emphasized and which will take a temporary back seat. Human nature takes over and the political minorities are at the mercy of a tyrannical majority. We see that with IRSgate, DOJ Civil Rights investigations, Obamacare waivers, etc.

Like others, I think that Rand Paul's instincts are headed in the right direction when it comes to these issues; perhaps more so than any other candidate. I've just not seen that he has been able to convert the potential energy to something more kinetic.

[Stephen]

Thought I'd bring this thread back from the dead with some interesting analysis (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rand-paul-will-win-over-young-voters-myth/).

[jc000]

If anything, this article reinforces my belief that millennials suck.

[Tamara]

Thought I'd bring this thread back from the dead with some interesting analysis (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rand-paul-will-win-over-young-voters-myth/).

The college age vote swings Liberal? No! When did that happen? /sarc

[jc000]

I don't think the democrats have a lock on anything, including the youth vote. I remember the one bright spot about the VA governor's election was that super con Ken Cuccinelli won the 18-24 vote: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/ken-cuccinelli-bright-spot-young-voters-99568.html.

IF Rand Paul can win over enough Ron Paul supporters AND be the premiere GOP candidate, he will be very well-positioned for 2016. But that's a big IF and AND.

[Stephen]

The college age vote swings Liberal? No! When did that happen? /sarc

There's been a lot of talk from Paul supporters about making inroads with young voters. He's supposed to have a lot of appeal there that most Rs don't, but apparently that's not the case. I think the results here are surprising to a lot of people. One way or another, I think Republicans are going to have to make progress with some traditionally liberal voting demographics if they ever want to re-take the White House. I think its worth discussing if Paul is a guy who can do that.

[NerdAlert]

As a "millennial" or gen y ( I'm 28) I can honestly say that a lot of us are not as liberal slanted as some people think. Many in my generation see the writing on the wall and would vote for someone with the right stance and campaign savvy. Look at what our options have been the last two elections and tell me, being a young person, who would YOU have voted for? McCain? I abstained. Romney, I only voted for him because of the disaster that was Obama's first term. I would vote for Rand before I would vote for almost anyone else on the ticket because he seems, I don't know, genuine. He has convictions that he seems to stick to. Much like candidate Obama he seems to be good at articulating his views. I think he would eat Hillary alive in a debate. Just my .02.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and real words.

[RoyGBiv]

I think he would eat Hillary alive in a debate.
Only if Candy Crowley is not the moderator. http://texaschlforum.com/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif

[JHC]

As a "millennial" or gen y ( I'm 28) I can honestly say that a lot of us are not as liberal slanted as some people think. Many in my generation see the writing on the wall and would vote for someone with the right stance and campaign savvy. Look at what our options have been the last two elections and tell me, being a young person, who would YOU have voted for? McCain? I abstained. Romney, I only voted for him because of the disaster that was Obama's first term. I would vote for Rand before I would vote for almost anyone else on the ticket because he seems, I don't know, genuine. He has convictions that he seems to stick to. Much like candidate Obama he seems to be good at articulating his views. I think he would eat Hillary alive in a debate. Just my .02.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and real words.

You're doing this all wrong! ;) But you should have happier choices coming up.

There is no virtue in enabling the worse of two evils by being too good to vote for lesser of the two evils! Romney is not my idea of ideological perfection but he is one bull stud of an executive that could get things done. Gigantic mistake by voters that did not recognize this.

I do not ascribe all blame to candidates as most punditry does. I actually think the majority of the blame belongs to the voters or non-voters.

[MDS]

There is no virtue in enabling the worse of two evils by being too good to vote for lesser of the two evils!

There most certainly is! Besides the slow consistent progress towards solutions that might actually help; in other words, even if it were true that voting for Good can only foster the worst Evil, which is certainly not true. But if it were:

If we're going to hell in a hand-basket I'd rather get it over with so we can start rebuilding. If my three alternatives are life, quick death, or slow death, I'm voting for life. Otherwise, give me the "worst" evil, a quick clean death, to go down fighting with my ballot in my hands.

[JHC]

There most certainly is! Besides the slow consistent progress towards solutions that might actually help; in other words, even if it were true that voting for Good can only foster the worst Evil, which is certainly not true. But if it were:

If we're going to hell in a hand-basket I'd rather get it over with so we can start rebuilding. If my three alternatives are life, quick death, or slow death, I'm voting for life. Otherwise, give me the "worst" evil, a quick clean death, to go down fighting with my ballot in my hands.

That is totally mistaken IMO. What that did was ruin millions of lives since 2009 - driven out of the workforce. Families shattered. That didn't have to happen. This economy should be booming. It could be booming.

[MDS]

That is totally mistaken IMO. What that did was ruin millions of lives since 2009 - driven out of the workforce. Families shattered. That didn't have to happen. This economy should be booming. It could be booming.
We can agree to disagree on that. There's no way to know for sure but I feel strongly that the republican nominees in the last two presidential elections would have done just as poor a job with the economy. Remember this started under W. And that's not even discussing the ways in which the gop wants to limit my day to day freedoms, which is as bad or worse than the democrats' silliness with guns.

In any case, even if a republican adminstration would have slowed this downward spiral we're on, I'd rather get it over with. A steep enough descent might wake enough people up, like turning up the heat on the boiling frog so it notices and hops out of the boiler. We've already got some bad burns but if we hop out soon we can survive.

[Tamara]

As a "millennial" or gen y ( I'm 28) I can honestly say that a lot of us are not as liberal slanted as some people think...

I don't know about other people's opinions, but I don't think there's anything special about your generation or my generation or whatever, it's not even a generation thing... It's just that typically and historically, percentage-wise, younger voters tend to swing more liberal.

[NerdAlert]

It's just that typically and historically, percentage-wise, younger voters tend to swing more liberal.

I agree completely. What I was trying to say is that even those who are not liberal have not had many options that we could really get behind. So when the media surveys young people over the last two or more presidential elections the results probably seem even more liberal than they actually are. The young conservatives are just not going to get behind as candidate for president like McCain or Romney. If young people can be stereotyped as anything it would be idealistic. Obama appeals to the idealism of the liberal demographic, but no candidate so far has done the same for the conservatives. Rand Paul could be that candidate.


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

[NerdAlert]

We can agree to disagree on that. There's no way to know for sure but I feel strongly that the republican nominees in the last two presidential elections would have done just as poor a job with the economy.

I'm with MDS. Watch the movie "inside job" for a look at why the recession happened and you will see that at worst, policies created the environment for the recession, and at best they were not removed by subsequent leaders. It actually started under Clinton in his lame duck period and Bush just let it ride. Obama did the same, and now here we are. We need to roll back some of the policies that got us here in in order to get ourselves out. The same policies that caused the financial disaster in our country are still in place. In our financial system the fox is guarding the hen house and it's only a matter of time before another rescission occurs. Sorry for the digression but to imply that Obama single handedly ruined these people's lives is just false. All he did was the same as Bush, just ignored it and hoped it would go away.


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

[JHC]

I'm with MDS. Watch the movie "inside job" for a look at why the recession happened and you will see that at worst, policies created the environment for the recession, and at best they were not removed by subsequent leaders. It actually started under Clinton in his lame duck period and Bush just let it ride. Obama did the same, and now here we are. We need to roll back some of the policies that got us here in in order to get ourselves out. The same policies that caused the financial disaster in our country are still in place. In our financial system the fox is guarding the hen house and it's only a matter of time before another rescission occurs. Sorry for the digression but to imply that Obama single handedly ruined these people's lives is just false. All he did was the same as Bush, just ignored it and hoped it would go away.


Sent from my iPhone, I apologize in advance for typos.

Thanks for being a good sport and as MDS said, we can agree to disagree on a lot of politics. But - There is ample evidence documented of the Bush Administrations attempts to reform the no standards lending situation. Didn't get it done but the warnings were raised and attempts were made.

But even if we did the basic Paul Ryan reforms of the tax code and entitlements we could have this ship up to ramming speed in not that long a time. The US energy boom on top of tax reform, some regulatory reform and some entitlement reform (along Ryan lines) would launch this rocket. And it wouldn't scare away the squishy middle.

More rad pruning would be neat but will have a heckuva time wining the independents required to win the White House. Just looking at the electorate as it is vs how I'd like it to be.

[MDS]

Thanks for being a good sport and as MDS said, we can agree to disagree on a lot of politics. But - There is ample evidence documented of the Bush Administrations attempts to reform the no standards lending situation. Didn't get it done but the warnings were raised and attempts were made.

But even if we did the basic Paul Ryan reforms of the tax code and entitlements we could have this ship up to ramming speed in not that long a time. The US energy boom on top of tax reform, some regulatory reform and some entitlement reform (along Ryan lines) would launch this rocket. And it wouldn't scare away the squishy middle.

More rad pruning would be neat but will have a heckuva time wining the independents required to win the White House. Just looking at the electorate as it is vs how I'd like it to be.
I'll vote for Paul in the primary and I'll vote for him if he gets on the ballot. (Heh, writing that out was good for a belly laugh. So, on second thought, I think I'll switch to L - I may do more good swelling the L rolls than voting in R primaries...) I don't see any other R or D candidate who would be a net win, so if there weren't a third party choice I'd abstain. The lesser evil voters can keep their "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" bumper stickers.

I'll take my beating without sanctioning it, thanks.

[Stephen]

Here's something I've been wondering, is it possible for a non-liberal candidate to win a national election without the support of the Christian Right? I feel like its a situation where you can't win with them, nor can you win without them.

My local Republicans are firmly in the pocket of social conservatives, but its not because all that many people in my area are Evangelicals. Its just that the ones that we do have get involved far more than anyone else. If you pander to them, you can count on having them organize and attend events, stuff envelops, do the get out the vote stuff, etc. I believe they're quite good at this in many parts the country.

What needs to happen is people like us who are sick of the status quo need to get involved locally to take their place. Relatively small numbers of highly motivated people who are willing to put in the work can make a huge difference.

[RoyGBiv]

What needs to happen is people like us who are sick of the status quo need to get involved locally to take their place. Relatively small numbers of highly motivated people who are willing to put in the work can make a huge difference.
You mean like the Tea Party?

[Shellback]

Rand Paul on ISIS. (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/perry-criticizes-obama-no-strategy-syria)


Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: "If the president has no strategy, maybe it's time for a new president."

In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: "If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

[Kyle Reese]

Rand Paul on ISIS. (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/perry-criticizes-obama-no-strategy-syria)

That makes far too much sense, which is why he's unelectable. The masses don't want strategy, they want EBT.

[Shellback]

That makes far too much sense, which is why he's unelectable. The masses don't want strategy, they want EBT.

I didn't think about the date and made the mistake of going grocery shopping yesterday...

[Sensei]

Rand Paul on ISIS. (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/perry-criticizes-obama-no-strategy-syria)

So, does this mean he is in favor of ground forces in Syraq? I ask because I have no confidence in our ability to destroy ISIS with just air strikes and SF raids.

[JHC]

I heard Rand interviewed on the subject of ISIS yesterday. If that's all he's got, he does not seem to have a very good grasp of ISIS. He declared that WE created ISIS when we provided some paltry amount of arms to Syrian rebels. No mention of the sea of weapons already loose in the region. No mention of Libyan stockpiles that were looted and headed east and south out of Libya. No mention of Assad emptying prisons of the cadre that formed ISIS. It sounded to me like the family tradition of dumbing it down to America created these terrorists.

[Jay Cunningham]

I'll take my beating without sanctioning it, thanks.


I like where your head's at.

[Shellback]

So, does this mean he is in favor of ground forces in Syraq? I ask because I have no confidence in our ability to destroy ISIS with just air strikes and SF raids.

My understanding is that Rand is in favor of seeking congressional approval for further action (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215094-rand-paul-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-iraq-without-congress), such as boots on the ground.


Although Paul is known for being skeptical of U.S. military engagement abroad, he endorsed limited military action in Iraq during an interview Tuesday with a local news station.

“With regard to Iraq, I have an open mind as to exactly what we do," Paul said. "I think aiding [Iraq Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki not out of the question, or whatever the new government might be," he told the station after a luncheon in Louisville.

"Airdrops of food, and particularly strategic bombing to prevent ISIS from taking over the country," he said.

But he added that military action should not be taken "unilaterally by a president."

"When he ran for office, he said no president should unilaterally go to war without the approval of Congress unless we're in imminent danger," Paul said.

"So really I'd like President Obama to go back and meet candidate Obama and see if they can come to an agreement."

Paul joins a growing number of lawmakers calling on the president to seek congressional authorization for action in Iraq when lawmakers return from recess in September.

[Sensei]

I heard Rand interviewed on the subject of ISIS yesterday. If that's all he's got, he does not seem to have a very good grasp of ISIS. He declared that WE created ISIS when we provided some paltry amount of arms to Syrian rebels. No mention of the sea of weapons already loose in the region. No mention of Libyan stockpiles that were looted and headed east and south out of Libya. No mention of Assad emptying prisons of the cadre that formed ISIS. It sounded to me like the family tradition of dumbing it down to America created these terrorists.

Saying that we need to destroy ISIS is a mission. How we go about doing that is the strategy. So far, neither Rand or Ted have been clear on what their strategy would be to accomplish the mission of destroying ISIS. That is probably due to the fact that key portions of their constituency would bolt if they were honest about the ground force commitment needed to accomplish their mission.

So, let's hear it folks. Raise your hand if you will vote for the candidate who propose 50-100K ground troops in Syraq.

[Shellback]

I heard Rand interviewed on the subject of ISIS yesterday. If that's all he's got, he does not seem to have a very good grasp of ISIS. He declared that WE created ISIS when we provided some paltry amount of arms to Syrian rebels. No mention of the sea of weapons already loose in the region. No mention of Libyan stockpiles that were looted and headed east and south out of Libya. No mention of Assad emptying prisons of the cadre that formed ISIS. It sounded to me like the family tradition of dumbing it down to America created these terrorists.

Do you have a link to the interview? *Where did ISIS come from? Is there a definitive lineage that we could all agree on?

*Probably better left for the ISIS thread but I figured I'd ask here since you mentioned it.

Our own FBI doesn't even consider Muslim/Islam/Al Qaeda/ISIS worthy of being included in their domestic threat assessment. FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism. (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/fbi-national-domestic-threat-assessment-omits-islamist-terrorism/)

The FBI’s most recent national threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.

Instead, the internal FBI intelligence report concluded in its 2013 assessment published this month that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements—none motivated by radical Islam.

They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists...

[JHC]

So, let's hear it folks. Raise your hand if you will vote for the candidate who propose 50-100K ground troops in Syraq.

That could be me depending on the candidate. I'm convinced the BIG Mideast war is inevitable but I don't want to see it start with the current CinC. That would just be untenable. So it's wackamole from 15K feet mostly until 2017-2018. But then it's a conventional massive movement to contact fighting a terr army. Iraqi, Kurdish, Jordanian, and Egyptians filling in to the cleared sectors for stability operations.

IF it waits that long. If ISIS rolls into Jordan, all bets are off.

[JHC]

Do you have a link to the interview? *Where did ISIS come from? Is there a definitive lineage that we could all agree on?

*Probably better left for the ISIS thread but I figured I'd ask here since you mentioned it.

Our own FBI doesn't even consider Muslim/Islam/Al Qaeda/ISIS worthy of being included in their domestic threat assessment. FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism. (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/fbi-national-domestic-threat-assessment-omits-islamist-terrorism/)

I heard it on a radio show he did a spot on yesterday. I hate to say the host so as not to give the wrong impression. ;) Hannity. Whom I am not a big fan of. Rand's comments were delivered in a back and forth with Hannity where Hannity was laying down an all Obama made disaster argument and Rand was offering his commentary.

[Sensei]

My understanding is that Rand is in favor of seeking congressional approval for further action (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215094-rand-paul-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-iraq-without-congress), such as boots on the ground.

OK, now President Paul is been granted Congressional approval and a $500B budget for the first year of combat operations. Let's hear his strategy in terms of troops, duration, and exit strategy. The man is running for POTUS he needs to be able to answer these questions. Saying that he would consult Congress is meaningless.


That could be me depending on the candidate. I'm convinced the BIG Mideast war is inevitable but I don't want to see it start with the current CinC. That would just be untenable. So it's wackamole from 15K feet mostly until 2017-2018. But then it's a conventional massive movement to contact fighting a terr army. Iraqi, Kurdish, Jordanian, and Egyptians filling in to the cleared sectors for stability operations.

IF it waits that long. If ISIS rolls into Jordan, all bets are off.

The next POTUS will inherit a $19T debt, downsized military, and skeptical strategic alliance. This does not sound like a recipe for success for the type of campaign that you describe.

[JHC]

OK, now President Paul is been granted Congressional approval and a $500B budget for the first year of combat operations. Let's hear his strategy in terms of troops, duration, and exit strategy. The man is running for POTUS he needs to be able to answer these questions. Saying that he would consult Congress is meaningless.



The next POTUS will inherit a $19T debt, downsized military, and skeptical strategic alliance. This does not sound like a recipe for success for the type of campaign that you describe.

Sure it does. Egypt and UAE have already acted on their own with airstrikes against Libyan Islamists. The region is starved for American leadership and power. You already set a budget of $500B above. You found that somewhere. That'll do. The takedown will not require years and years.

[LittleLebowski]

Sure it does. Egypt and UAE have already acted on their own with airstrikes against Libyan Islamists. The region is starved for American leadership and power. You already set a budget of $500B above. You found that somewhere. That'll do. The takedown will not require years and years.

You might ask them if they're "starved for American leadership and power." :D

[JHC]

Do you have a link to the interview? *Where did ISIS come from? Is there a definitive lineage that we could all agree on?

*Probably better left for the ISIS thread but I figured I'd ask here since you mentioned it.

Our own FBI doesn't even consider Muslim/Islam/Al Qaeda/ISIS worthy of being included in their domestic threat assessment. FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism. (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/fbi-national-domestic-threat-assessment-omits-islamist-terrorism/)

OTOH he's a smart dude and I think he would learn in office that the valuable role that the American military as hegemon plays in the world system. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/02/rand-paul-lets-smash-isis/

[RevolverRob]

I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

Islamic terrorism is an ideology. You defeat ideologies total war style by crushing them into submission, not by fighting campaigns in one country one decade at a time. Syria is a losing proposition and it's a dumb idea to send a lot of troops there. Unless we intend to finish the job, by marching everywhere there are terrorist cells and financiers and systematically destroying them, burning their homes, and salting the Earth they lived on, we're not solving the problem. Think East India Company hunting pirates or Sherman burning the South to the ground. That's the only resolution to this conflict.

It doesn't matter if Paul, Cruz, Obama, or the Omicronians from Omicron Perseii 8 run the country - The American people won't commit to what needs to be done, and frankly I don't blame them. Paul doesn't have a plan, because I think he knows that efforts in this realm are futile, I just see it as pandering and hot air. He'd be doing better if he talked about serious welfare reform in this country.

Just my opinion of course, but I don't think any presidential candidate is going to solve a ISIS problem anytime soon so I view it as irrelevant.

-Rob

[Shellback]

OK, now President Paul is been granted Congressional approval and a $500B budget for the first year of combat operations. Let's hear his strategy in terms of troops, duration, and exit strategy. The man is running for POTUS he needs to be able to answer these questions. Saying that he would consult Congress is meaningless.
I don't know his exact strategy. I believe at this point in time he's not privy to all of the intel necessary to provide an accurate assessment and develop a concrete strategy. I'm also guessing that part of his strategy would be to consult his military advisors, Generals, etc. prior to espousing a course of action.

Consulting Congress isn't meaningless. Congressional approval prior to going to war is laid out in our founding documents. I believe he's trying to stay true to those versus signing executive orders.

[Sensei]

Consulting Congress isn't meaningless. Congressional approval prior to going to war is laid out in our founding documents. I believe he's trying to stay true to those versus signing executive orders.

I say meaningless because I think that any POTUS who goes before Congress and requests an authorization for force against ISIS will get it. My question is how far will he go once he has it.

Here is where I'm at with this. I agree with RevolverBob and JHC that a big ass war in the ME is needed to definitely solve the Islamist threat. Anything short of that results in a situation where we play whack-a-mole every 10 years. However, I think that the US missed its window to win such a war if that window ever really existed. The socioeconomic situation in the US and our relationship with our alliances is such that the risk:reward is dubious at best.

[JHC]

Solid but I think the window of opportunity to do it properly is just now opening. It is only in the last couple of years max that it has really dawned on the regimes that what has gotten out of the bottle threatens all of them. It may take a SAM-7 shootdown in Frankfurt or Paris to solidify the EU but they're already moving there. Germany has sent quite a bit good stuff over there. May have forces on the ground already.

I think the world may soon to take an amazing turn. And it may not turn out well.

[Sensei]

I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

Islamic terrorism is an ideology. You defeat ideologies total war style by crushing them into submission, not by fighting campaigns in one country one decade at a time. Syria is a losing proposition and it's a dumb idea to send a lot of troops there. Unless we intend to finish the job, by marching everywhere there are terrorist cells and financiers and systematically destroying them, burning their homes, and salting the Earth they lived on, we're not solving the problem. Think East India Company hunting pirates or Sherman burning the South to the ground. That's the only resolution to this conflict.

It doesn't matter if Paul, Cruz, Obama, or the Omicronians from Omicron Perseii 8 run the country - The American people won't commit to what needs to be done, and frankly I don't blame them. Paul doesn't have a plan, because I think he knows that efforts in this realm are futile, I just see it as pandering and hot air. He'd be doing better if he talked about serious welfare reform in this country.

Just my opinion of course, but I don't think any presidential candidate is going to solve a ISIS problem anytime soon so I view it as irrelevant.

-Rob

I largely agree. There are militant Islamist groups across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. ISIS alone is thought to have 10,000 fighters with twice as many sympathizers who have not yet taken up arms. Then, there are the other Sunni/Wahhabi, and Shia militant groups. Good luck cracking that nut.

[jc000]

I'm sorry – all one has to do is look at the loudest anti-Paul (Ron and Rand) voices to understand that these tired arguments against "isolationism" are from the very same chickenhawk neocons who have exacerbated this situation in the first place.

Who the hell knows if Rand Paul has all the answers to the IS (or any other) threat? Irrelevant! What is important is that, more than any other potential candidate I have heard from, he understands the grave threats posed to our long-standing system of government, and is well-positioned to help us reverse course.

Quite frankly, with the numbers of muslims living in and emigrating to western nations, I don't see how we will EVER get rid of this threat. I would state that Islam is simply not compatible with Western civilization, not only due to the ubiquity of extremism within this community, but by the very nature of the religion itself. We must require assimilation, or we will perish – it's really that simple.

[JHC]

"chickenhawk neocons" is a poor descriptor. For example Bill Bennett and William Crystal have skin in the game. Congressman Tom Cotton is not a chickenhawk. I know the term originated from Democrats hurling the insult at Cheney or some others but it doesn't really describe the traditional Republican national security platform or it's advocates.

[MDS]

We must require assimilation, or we will perish – it's really that simple.

Wait, you're saying that the solution to "the grave threats posed to our long-standing form of government" is to assimilation? If so, could you elaborate? You might be talking about immigration in general. You might be talking about immigration but only specific to Islam. You might be talking about globally, requiring the (what, Westernization?) of any culture that is fundamentally incompatible with our own...or you might saying that in a context specific to Islam. I'd like to hear your clarification......

......but I have a suspicion that I'll disagree vehemently. "The grave threats posed to our long-standing form of government" has nothing to do with the unassimilated practice of Islam, or even with any kind of extremism at all. The threat was elegantly stated some time ago:


A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy.

You might think that asking for a balanced budget is a non sequitur in this thread, but fiscal responsibility is the only solution to "the grave threats posed to our long-standing form of government."

[jc000]

"chickenhawk neocons" is a poor descriptor. For example Bill Bennett and William Crystal have skin in the game. Congressman Tom Cotton is not a chickenhawk. I know the term originated from Democrats hurling the insult at Cheney or some others but it doesn't really describe the traditional Republican national security platform or it's advocates.

Just to be clear, in what way do you mean Bill Bennet is not a neocon? And do you mean William Kristol, or am I thinking of someone else?

[RoyGBiv]

^^^^ Assimilation... MY interpretation.

When I was growing up in NYC, surrounded by people of all races and ethnicities, we were Americans first. Not Hispanic-Americans or African-Americans or some other Hyphenated-American. My grandparents came through Ellis Island from Eastern Europe via Argentina (with the proverbial $2 in their pockets), had their names shortened (because their Russian surnames were too hard to spell) and they set about learning English, finding or creating jobs (my maternal grandmother became a seamstress, my maternal grandfather a barber. Later they opened a lunch counter/soda shop together) and becoming Americans. They raised a family of children that spoke English as a first language and only spoke Yiddish when talking to each other, or other folks from the "Old Country". Assimilation.

Many of todays immigrants seem to not want to let go of their Old Country. Raising the Mexican flag over schools in Texas and California. Calls for Sharia (and other foreign) law in US courts (Link (http://www.flhouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=51413)). Here in TX I interact with people regularly that I've known for 10 years and they can't speak any better English than the day I met them.

I love immigrants. (Firstly for the food ;) ) Some of the best "Americans" I've met came here to escape terrible horrors in their own countries (One of my customers is Bosnian. He's seen some terrible stuff. Now he owns a thriving business, employs a dozen people and his kids are on track to medical school). Some others just want to suckle the teat and demand that we respect their traditions and bend to their laws. Not assimilation.

[JHC]

Rand's very recent, maybe latest explanation of this position. He might be criticized for its similarity to "lead from behind" which is in contrast to the world order that guaranteed the peace and economic globalization since 1945. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-paul-iran-and-syria-have-the-means-and-ability-to-wipe#9msb4b

[jc000]

^^^^ Assimilation... MY interpretation.

When I was growing up in NYC, surrounded by people of all races and ethnicities, we were Americans first. Not Hispanic-Americans or African-Americans or some other Hyphenated-American. My grandparents came through Ellis Island from Eastern Europe via Argentina (with the proverbial $2 in their pockets), had their names shortened (because their Russian surnames were too hard to spell) and they set about learning English, finding or creating jobs (my maternal grandmother became a seamstress, my maternal grandfather a barber. Later they opened a lunch counter/soda shop together) and becoming Americans. They raised a family of children that spoke English as a first language and only spoke Yiddish when talking to each other, or other folks from the "Old Country". Assimilation.

Many of todays immigrants seem to not want to let go of their Old Country. Raising the Mexican flag over schools in Texas and California. Calls for Sharia (and other foreign) law in US courts (Link (http://www.flhouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=51413)). Here in TX I interact with people regularly that I've known for 10 years and they can't speak any better English than the day I met them.

I love immigrants. (Firstly for the food ;) ) Some of the best "Americans" I've met came here to escape terrible horrors in their own countries (One of my customers is Bosnian. He's seen some terrible stuff. Now he owns a thriving business, employs a dozen people and his kids are on track to medical school). Some others just want to suckle the teat and demand that we respect their traditions and bend to their laws. Not assimilation.

Thanks.

MDS, I would agree with RoyGBiv's well-written summary. There must be a conscious willingness and desire to merge with the host country's population.

I really don't see how fiscal responsibility is the only solution to the grave threats posed to our long-standing form of government.

[JHC]

Just to be clear, in what way do you mean Bill Bennet is not a neocon? And do you mean William Kristol, or am I thinking of someone else?

I mis-spelled Kristol! lol or maybe I'll blame it on autocorrect. Yes call them neocons by all means. Call me a neocon. They don't qualify as chickenhawks when they have son's on active duty military status during the GWOT. Add Michael Ledeen to that that list. Me too.

Its the chickhawk term I was mostly keying on.

[jc000]

They don't qualify as chickenhawks when they have son's on active duty military status during the GWOT.

Let's agree to disagree on that, but I get your point. Regardless, I know that when William Kristol stands for something, that something has nothing to do with what's best for our country.

[MDS]

I love immigrants. (Firstly for the food ;) ) Some of the best "Americans" I've met came here to escape terrible horrors in their own countries (One of my customers is Bosnian. He's seen some terrible stuff. Now he owns a thriving business, employs a dozen people and his kids are on track to medical school). Some others just want to suckle the teat and demand that we respect their traditions and bend to their laws. Not assimilation.

I love immigrants, too! (Firstly for the, you know, sperm and eggs and stuff. ;) ) I guess I take issue with the implication that assimilation or lack thereof contributes in any way to the fundamental, deep-rooted problems that threaten our form of government. GardoneVT likes to harp on "the enemy is us," and I have to agree. The race issues in this country are only tangentially related to unassimilated immigrants; rather, they're the other side of a coin who's face is a lack of personal responsibility, and a lack of consequence for the lack of responsibility. Unassimilated immigrants are, in my considerable experience, no more likely to be on the public dole than any other group with low income potential. The hard cost of being on the dole is significant; the soft opportunity costs of lost productivity are more insidious and probably higher if accurately accounted; but the philosophical cost of evolving national priorities - whether my neighbors' fresh off the boat or Mayflower descendants' in double-wides or looters' with slave ancestors - national priorities evolving from freedom to dependency is what threatens our form of government. The threat from Mexican flags or cries for Sharia law ain't no threat at all, in comparison.

I'll expand on the quote from my previous post:


A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.



Look at our history and tell me we're not following that sequence like we're on rails. If we're going to disprove this proverb, we'll need to stop focusing on relatively trivial matters like what do Cubans and cue balls have in common, and make the hard choices to get our finances in order. Everything else is mostly an engineering exercise; or, at worst, still not bad enough to be an existential threat.

[JHC]

Let's agree to disagree on that, but I get your point. Regardless, I know that when William Kristol stands for something, that something has nothing to do with what's best for our country.

Well we don't agree on that either. Agreed.

[jc000]

I guess I take issue with the implication that assimilation or lack thereof contributes in any way to the fundamental, deep-rooted problems that threaten our form of government.

I'm not worried about our form of government, I'm concerned about the effect this lack of assimilation has our western society and values.

[MDS]

I'm not worried about our form of government, I'm concerned about the effect this lack of assimilation has our western society and values.

Sorry, I must have misread your previous post where you said:


We must require assimilation, or we will perish – it's really that simple.

Trying to make sense of these two statements. When you say that the threat from unassimilated immigrants will make us perish, you must not be referring to the "grave threats to our long-standing system of government" that you mentioned earlier.

You've clearly said that unassimilated immigrants will cause us to perish. Maybe it would help if you could clarify what you mean by "we will perish," if by that you didn't mean those grave threats to our system of government. Is it this effect on our western society and values that you mention? If so, what effect is that, exactly? And what values are you describing as western? And how do you square that with the fact that American social mores have evolved enough to be replaced many times over, as conquerors, immigrants, reconquerors, and more immigrants brought their ideas, lifestyles, priorities, work ethic - not to mention food and music and religion - to mix with and often displace the previously dominant set of values?

And if these grave threats to our system of government you mention, if they aren't posed by unassimilated immigrants as I previously (mis)understood you to say, exactly what IS posing those threats?

Sorry to sound pedantic. I'm hoping that your answers will clarify what otherwise sounds like an argument of bigotry and ignorance.

[Shellback]

Rand Paul - Time Magazine piece. (http://time.com/3268581/rand-paul-i-am-not-an-isolationist/) Interesting article that's worth a read.


If I had been in President Obama's shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS

Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.

I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.

As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. “Peace through Strength” only works if you have and show strength.

Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS. After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?

And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?

LINK FOR MORE

[jc000]

And if these grave threats to our system of government you mention, if they aren't posed by unassimilated immigrants as I previously (mis)understood you to say, exactly what IS posing those threats?

You did misread that post, and I'm sorry that was poorly worded.

The "grave threats posed to our long-standing system of government" I refer to in post #129 deals with the broken checks and balances between our three federal branches, as well as the general overreach and authoritarian expansion of the federal government.

By using the word "threat" twice, the post is not clear.

The 2nd paragraph is about my belief that Rand Paul is the national leader who best understands our current crisis in government, how we got there, and how to get out of it.

The 3rd paragraph deals with my frustration that we (concerned citizens here and in Europe) up in arms about the behavior of no small number of Islamists, yet there has been no resistance or even thought put into managing that migration to Europe and the US.


Sorry to sound pedantic. I'm hoping that your answers will clarify what otherwise sounds like an argument of bigotry and ignorance.

Can't help you there, nor am I interested in that. I stand by what I said, hopefully clarified above.

[MDS]

The 3rd paragraph deals with my frustration that we (concerned citizens here and in Europe) up in arms about the behavior of no small number of Islamists, yet there has been no resistance or even thought put into managing that migration to Europe and the US.

And your thoughts about managing that migration is that we must require assimilation or we will perish? Islam is a set of beliefs and a system of thought. Beliefs and thoughts are not yet illegal or regulated in the free world - that's a big part of what being free means. I'm no apologist, nor am I overly squeamish about war and collateral damage, and in my ignorance I have no grounds to object if people more informed than I decide to turn the Muslim world into polished glass. But if we do it, let's do it for their actions, not for their beliefs.

Now if you want to talk about existential threats to our system of government and our way of life, let's talk about the will to repress ideas and beliefs because we disagree with them, because they're distasteful to us, because they're a "strangeness too dangerous." We need to punish and eradicate enemy actions, not alien beliefs, if we want to keep our way of life.

Better yet, let's stop focusing on the red herring of Islam, and start talking about how we're burying ourselves in deadly levels of stupid mundane debt, about reducing our consumption and raising our productivity. I know it's hard to honestly search in the mirror for the hard truths, but no amount of finger-pointing - at Islam, or unassimilated immigrants, or Chinese hackers, or whatever - is going to make that truth any more palatable, let alone fixable. What kind of hubris makes us think we can fix the world, when we can't keep our domestic affairs in any impressive order?

In any case, we can at least agree on Rand Paul - more than any other R or D candidate, he understands the problem and the fix.

[Shellback]

At least he's got something new to say. (http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-tells-the-world-what-his-first-act-as-president-would-be-and-its-bold/)


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) traveled up to New Hampshire to visit Generation Opportunity’s chapter there and made some bold remarks after one person in the audience asked whether he’d repeal executive orders if he were elected president.

Without saying whether he would run or not, Paul replied, “I think the first executive order that I would issue would be to repeal all previous executive orders,” which really got the crowd pumped, Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle reported.

Outta the park.


I’m very serious that the biggest problem with President Obama is his usurpation of power, destroying the separation of powers and not believing there are any checks and balances and believing that the executive branch can do whatever it wants—and this is exemplified in immigration, Obamacare and more—but really it’s the most seriously destructive thing he’s doing to this country,” Paul said. “While Obamacare’s bad, Dodd-Frank is bad, immigration is bad, the problem is is he’s doing it in an unconstitutional way. You can see how the crowd really understands that. The problem is he’s acting like a legislature.

[RevolverRob]

At least he's got something new to say. (http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-tells-the-world-what-his-first-act-as-president-would-be-and-its-bold/)



Outta the park.

He could win my vote right now if he actually does it. No joke, end of story.

In fact...somedood mentioned nearly that exact thing in another thread (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13121-The-Islamic-State&p=248753&viewfull=1#post248753) recently, the quote was...
I'd probably cap off my presidency...by rescinding a stack of presidential executive orders, and by issuing an executive order removing the presidential power of executive orders or by asking for a constitutional amendment that removed the ability to issue an executive order which has been grossly over abused by recent presidents as an end-run around the Constitution.

Totally would vote for Paul.

[Shellback]

He could win my vote right now if he actually does it. No joke, end of story.

In fact...somedood mentioned nearly that exact thing in another thread (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13121-The-Islamic-State&p=248753&viewfull=1#post248753) recently, the quote was...

Totally would vote for Paul.

Great minds... ;)

[RoyGBiv]

Rand Paul: Conservative Realist? (http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/28/rand-paul-conservative-realist)


Rand Paul: The Case for Foreign-Policy "Realism" (http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/24/rand-paul-the-case-for-foreign-policy-re)