Rand Paul: Many in the GOP would have made the middle east worse than Obama has

[Matty]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rand-paul-slams-gop-hawks-117107.html#ixzz3XgmGnqzu

I cannot understand why an honest liberal would hate this man more than the other republican candidates. Yet it seems like there is no candidate that gets more hate and vitriol from the red avatars on this board than Rand Paul.

[bobloblaw]

And this is precisely why the GOP has lost its Foreign Policy popular edge it enjoyed from 1968-2003.

Polls show the public doesnt trust Iran to abide by any agreement and that Iran will cheat. But they still support the Iran deal. 60% support the Iran deal and 60% think Iran will cheat.

The GOP has not paid penance for the Iraq War. Virtually no one on the right and no one in the GOP has said the war was wrong.

The GOP hasnt repudiated the Bush years and will remain unelectable for the WH until they do.

This is why nominating Jebbie is so absurd and why so many here who think Jeb is the best candidate are so wrong.

[Beet]

If I had to pick a GOPer to win next year it'd definitely be Rand. He has kept the redeeming inclinations of his dad while jettisoning the most dangerous elements (the gold standard, racist newsletters, etc.)

[Blair]

Eh his comments re gay marriage put him off, as an honest liberal. Yeah I like him for some of his foreign policy but for us liberals he's another Reaganomics supporter who'd give massive tax cuts to the rich whilst falling to help the poorest in society. As a liberal his support for gun rights, like complete opposition of any form of control is bad. As a liberal his stance on abortion is bad.

It's like saying the GOP must love Lieberman because he's a hawk. Some issues have more importance than others

[bobloblaw]

If I had to pick a GOPer to win next year it'd definitely be Rand. He has kept the redeeming inclinations of his dad while jettisoning the most dangerous elements (the gold standard, racist newsletters, etc.)

We had the gold standard for nearly 200 years. Liberals dislike it because the gold standard limits inflation which makes debt more burdensome and makes Keynesian Economics impossible to implement.

Fiat money is what is dangerous to the middle class.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

A speech from Rand Paul is indistinguishable from one from Putin.

[bedstuy]

I might agree with him on some foreign policy matters more than Ted Cruz.  But, that fact that he's flip-flopped, pandered to nuts, been a frequent guest on Alex Jones and grandstanded on non-issues like drones and Benghazi, it makes him untrustworthy.  

If you went nuts with Benghazi conspiracy theories, you have no integrity or judgment in my opinion.  That's what it comes down to.  Foreign policy is very complicated and tricky, I want someone with good judgment, good character and a deep understanding of the issues.  Rand Paul is a clown so I can't trust him.  

If I had to pick a GOPer to win next year it'd definitely be Rand. He has kept the redeeming inclinations of his dad while jettisoning the most dangerous elements (the gold standard, racist newsletters, etc.)

We had the gold standard for nearly 200 years. Liberals dislike it because the gold standard limits inflation which makes debt more burdensome and makes Keynesian Economics impossible to implement.

Fiat money is what is dangerous to the middle class.

You couldn't be more wrong dude!  We didn't have the gold standard for 200 years, what on earth are you talking about!?  Gold standards don't limit inflation necessarily.  If we actually had the gold standard in the 1840s and 1850s, we would have had insane inflation because of the gold rush.  The gold standard is just a terrible, arbitrary way to run your monetary policy and impossible in the present day.  There's no reason to even consider it because it's demonstrably bad.

[Sumner 1868]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rand-paul-slams-gop-hawks-117107.html#ixzz3XgmGnqzu

I cannot understand why an honest liberal would hate this man more than the other republican candidates. Yet it seems like there is no candidate that gets more hate and vitriol from the red avatars on this board than Rand Paul.

Because the "liberals" simply go with the Democratic Party. The progressives don't seem to detest Paul.

[bedstuy]

I might agree with him on some foreign policy matters more than Ted Cruz.  But, that fact that he's flip-flopped, pandered to nuts, been a frequent guest on Alex Jones and grandstanded on non-issues like drones and Benghazi, it makes him untrustworthy.  

If you went nuts with Benghazi conspiracy theories, you have no integrity or judgment in my opinion.  That's what it comes down to.  Foreign policy is very complicated and tricky, I want someone with good judgment, good character and a deep understanding of the issues.  Rand Paul is a clown so I can't trust him.  

If I had to pick a GOPer to win next year it'd definitely be Rand. He has kept the redeeming inclinations of his dad while jettisoning the most dangerous elements (the gold standard, racist newsletters, etc.)

We had the gold standard for nearly 200 years. Liberals dislike it because the gold standard limits inflation which makes debt more burdensome and makes Keynesian Economics impossible to implement.

Fiat money is what is dangerous to the middle class.

You couldn't be more wrong dude!  We didn't have the gold standard for 200 years, what on earth are you talking about!?  Gold standards don't limit inflation necessarily.  If we actually had the gold standard in the 1840s and 1850s, we would have had insane inflation because of the gold rush.  The gold standard is just a terrible, arbitrary way to run your monetary policy and impossible in the present day.  There's no reason to even consider it because it's demonstrably bad.

We DID have the gold standard in the 1840s and 1850s, and there WAS inflation. The price of silver went up for like 50 years, which prevented total collapse of the system.

No. 

The US basically had a silver standard from the founding to the 1830s.  We had fiat money from the Civil War to the 1870s when he adopted a Gold standard.  We left the gold standard in 1933 after it helped destroy our economy. 

I should have phrased by point about the Gold rush differently, yes.  It did inflate our currency and it's an example of how the gold standard is nonsense. 

[bobloblaw]

I might agree with him on some foreign policy matters more than Ted Cruz.  But, that fact that he's flip-flopped, pandered to nuts, been a frequent guest on Alex Jones and grandstanded on non-issues like drones and Benghazi, it makes him untrustworthy.  

If you went nuts with Benghazi conspiracy theories, you have no integrity or judgment in my opinion.  That's what it comes down to.  Foreign policy is very complicated and tricky, I want someone with good judgment, good character and a deep understanding of the issues.  Rand Paul is a clown so I can't trust him.  

If I had to pick a GOPer to win next year it'd definitely be Rand. He has kept the redeeming inclinations of his dad while jettisoning the most dangerous elements (the gold standard, racist newsletters, etc.)

We had the gold standard for nearly 200 years. Liberals dislike it because the gold standard limits inflation which makes debt more burdensome and makes Keynesian Economics impossible to implement.

Fiat money is what is dangerous to the middle class.

You couldn't be more wrong dude!  We didn't have the gold standard for 200 years, what on earth are you talking about!?  Gold standards don't limit inflation necessarily.  If we actually had the gold standard in the 1840s and 1850s, we would have had insane inflation because of the gold rush.  The gold standard is just a terrible, arbitrary way to run your monetary policy and impossible in the present day.  There's no reason to even consider it because it's demonstrably bad.

We DID have the gold standard in the 1840s and 1850s, and there WAS inflation. The price of silver went up for like 50 years, which prevented total collapse of the system.

Prior to Fiat money, inflation was due mostly to wars. The 1840s and 50s didnt have inflation, the 1860s did. The entire 19th century had slow deflation due to increasing productivity and innovation.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

[bobloblaw]

I might agree with him on some foreign policy matters more than Ted Cruz.  But, that fact that he's flip-flopped, pandered to nuts, been a frequent guest on Alex Jones and grandstanded on non-issues like drones and Benghazi, it makes him untrustworthy.  

If you went nuts with Benghazi conspiracy theories, you have no integrity or judgment in my opinion.  That's what it comes down to.  Foreign policy is very complicated and tricky, I want someone with good judgment, good character and a deep understanding of the issues.  Rand Paul is a clown so I can't trust him.  

If I had to pick a GOPer to win next year it'd definitely be Rand. He has kept the redeeming inclinations of his dad while jettisoning the most dangerous elements (the gold standard, racist newsletters, etc.)

We had the gold standard for nearly 200 years. Liberals dislike it because the gold standard limits inflation which makes debt more burdensome and makes Keynesian Economics impossible to implement.

Fiat money is what is dangerous to the middle class.

You couldn't be more wrong dude!  We didn't have the gold standard for 200 years, what on earth are you talking about!?  Gold standards don't limit inflation necessarily.  If we actually had the gold standard in the 1840s and 1850s, we would have had insane inflation because of the gold rush.  The gold standard is just a terrible, arbitrary way to run your monetary policy and impossible in the present day.  There's no reason to even consider it because it's demonstrably bad.

We DID have the gold standard in the 1840s and 1850s, and there WAS inflation. The price of silver went up for like 50 years, which prevented total collapse of the system.

No.  

The US basically had a silver standard from the founding to the 1830s.  We had fiat money from the Civil War to the 1870s when he adopted a Gold standard.  We left the gold standard in 1933 after it helped destroy our economy.  

I should have phrased by point about the Gold rush differently, yes.  It did inflate our currency and it's an example of how the gold standard is nonsense.  

I meant to say we had a mixed system,the Spanish Milled Dollar and the Gold, and the Greenbacks were repayable in Gold. Look it up. I actually agreed with you more than Bobobolow, but I just wanted to correct the point about the Gold Rush.

Gold was convertible to dollars and vice versa for private citizens up to 1933. US dollars were convertible to gold for US trading partners until 1971. Going off the second gold standard in 1971 is one of the main causes of the 1970s inflation.

Inflation allows governments to spend more than they have because inflation reduces the burden of debt.

[King]

Why do Libertarians think there were no recessions or inflation crises before the Federal Reserve? It's easily verifiable as wrong by the even simplest of google searches. What a joke.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why do Libertarians think there were no recessions or inflation crises before the Federal Reserve? It's easily verifiable as wrong by the even simplest of google searches. What a joke.

They're confusing the Golden Age* with the Gilded Age.

_{*of Capitalism.}

[CapoteMonster]

Why do Libertarians think there were no recessions or inflation crises before the Federal Reserve? It's easily verifiable as wrong by the even simplest of google searches. What a joke.

They're confusing the Golden Age* with the Gilded Age.

_{*of Capitalism.}

[ElectionsGuy]

He's right, he should keep verbally kicking the crap out neocons until people pay attention to him. But of course he's pretty facing the entire Republican party (at this point), so its disastrous for nomination purposes.

A speech from Rand Paul is indistinguishable from one from Putin.

I'm sure.

[Sumner 1868]

He's right, he should keep verbally kicking the crap out neocons until people pay attention to him. But of course he's pretty facing the entire Republican party (at this point), so its disastrous for nomination purposes.

A speech from Rand Paul is indistinguishable from one from Putin.

I'm sure.

Shadow has also argued there was no human rights violations at Guantanamo, so...

[Bull Moose Base]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rand-paul-slams-gop-hawks-117107.html#ixzz3XgmGnqzu

I cannot understand why an honest liberal would hate this man more than the other republican candidates. Yet it seems like there is no candidate that gets more hate and vitriol from the red avatars on this board than Rand Paul.

Elizabeth Warren just ruled out supporting Rand Paul or Ted Cruz for president.

[Mercenary]

I wish he was a bit more "progressive" on some issues than he is but I still support him.
But even the way he is it'll be tough to win the primary.

I certainly agree with his comment here. I don't like Obama's FP, but it is far better than McCain's or Romney's would have been.

[Bull Moose Base]

Angus King, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are all more or at least as hawkish as Paul, but who cares? Republican = SUCKS

How, for example, are Sanders and Warren as hawkish as Paul?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rand-paul-slams-gop-hawks-117107.html#ixzz3XgmGnqzu

I cannot understand why an honest liberal would hate this man more than the other republican candidates. Yet it seems like there is no candidate that gets more hate and vitriol from the red avatars on this board than Rand Paul.

Because I find his habit of rolling a die to decide which group he'll be pandering to this week annoying, insulting, and un-presidential?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Paul really seems to be trying to have it both ways with comments like this and his signing that Iran letter.

[pbrower2a]

Gold was convertible to dollars and vice versa for private citizens up to 1933. US dollars were convertible to gold for US trading partners until 1971. Going off the second gold standard in 1971 is one of the main causes of the 1970s inflation.

Inflation allows governments to spend more than they have because inflation reduces the burden of debt.

What makes a currency valuable is what one can buy with it. North Korean currency is worthless because one can buy nothing with it. North Korea must often make many  transactions in hard currency. South Korea has an economic powerhouse, and its currency is valuable. 

Governments in depression are more interested in getting increases in economic activity than in keeping debt at bay. When the economy overheats, then and only then does a depresed economy operate in a phantom zone.

It is economic activity and not hoarded gold that makes a country rich.   

[HAnnA MArin County]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rand-paul-slams-gop-hawks-117107.html#ixzz3XgmGnqzu

I cannot understand why an honest liberal would hate this man more than the other republican candidates. Yet it seems like there is no candidate that gets more hate and vitriol from the red avatars on this board than Rand Paul.

Because I find his habit of rolling a die to decide which group he'll be pandering to this week annoying, insulting, and un-presidential?

This. His views and statements regarding the War on Drugs and pointing out the disproportionate amount of minorities in prison for drug offenses is just to pander to those minorities, particularly African Americans. His views and statements on foreign policy is just pandering to the non-interventionist "doves," particularly those on the far left who have hated Hillary ever since she voted for the war over a decade ago. Breaking with your party on a limited amount of issues doesn't mean that the other side will come and embrace you with open arms. I'd imagine the reason most red avatars "hate" Paul is just because of that: his platform, ideology and party contradicts most everything that red avatars believe. Wondering why so many red avatars despise Paul is like wondering why so many blue avatars on here "hate" Hillary.

I just can't see how he thinks he can pander so much based on these issues, because I don't think many Americans' first priority is ending the War on Drugs or non-interventionism (or foreign policy in general, for that matter), but if that's his strategy, go right ahead. 

[Brewer]

Because he flip-flops and doesn't support gay marriage. Meanwhile, every Democratic candidate has flip-flopped far worse than Rand Paul and only talk about gay marriage when it benefits them

Lol, is this post about support from liberals or from the general public? Because you can't honestly think the only issue we have with him is his opposition to gay marriage.

[Brewer]

Because he flip-flops and doesn't support gay marriage. Meanwhile, every Democratic candidate has flip-flopped far worse than Rand Paul and only talk about gay marriage when it benefits them

Lol, is this post about support from liberals or from the general public? Because you can't honestly think the only issue we have with him is his opposition to gay marriage.

I can only speak from my personal experience, but liberals I know only have gripes with his perceived flip-flopping and his position on gay marriage. Yes we differ on economics, but there is no reason to not like him just as a person. Kucinich is a hardcore statist, but libertarians adore him.

Since when are we talking about him as a person? He's one of my favorite Republicans, but obviously I have qualms with him in areas other than gay marriage (minimum wage, taxes, abortion, guns, etc.). Whoever you're talking to is hardly a liberal if their sole disagreement with him is his flip-flopping and opposition to gay marriage.