RIP Rand Paul, says GOP created ISIS

[Likely Voter]

The amazing thing is that the GOP candidates are spending a lot more time talking about Iraq and ISIS then they talk about Obamacare or jobs. Apparently they see this as a winning issue. However the general electorate arent going to buy the whole "Iraq was fine until Obama came into office" thing. Obama was elected on a promise to get us out of Iraq. I don't think his successor is going to win on the promise to get us back in.

[WVdemocrat]

Wish he was a Democrat. He consistently says things on foreign policy that I WISH Democrats said more often.

You can vote outside party lines, you know

I can't speek for publicunofficial, but I disagree with Rand on too many issues. I couldn't, in good conscious, vote for him. He's libertarian-leaning. He supports de-regulation and is opposed to gun control. I have a great deal of admiration for his stance on foreign policy and civil liberties, but he's just not my candidate. Although I will say, it would be refreshing to hear Democrats talk more like this.

And what is wrong with loosening up red tape and respecting the Second Amendment?

Loosening up red tape is code for let corporations run wild and unfettered. Citizens have to abide by laws. So should corporations. And using vague language like "loosening up red tape" allows you to skirt the issue. If loosening regulations will be good for the American economy and for American workers, then I'll support it.

And I respect the Second Amendment, but I think background checks and mental health exams are common sense steps to take. Same goes for caps on magazines and an assault weapons ban.

You can't stick to rigid ideology when it comes to issues that affect people's lives. That is reckless and irresponsible. A healthy dose of pragmatism (which does not translate to centrism) is needed to govern. I consider myself pretty open-minded and open to common sense solutions. At the end of the day, that's what this is about, right? Finding solutions? It's not about finding someone to argue with on TV 3 times, and then people vote. Too often, libertarians cling to their rigid ideology and don't budge, even when the solution sometimes goes against their ideology.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Wish he was a Democrat. He consistently says things on foreign policy that I WISH Democrats said more often.

Above is the type of voter Rand and RINO types try to appeal to, endlessly. The problem is, the party label overcomes everything else. When will they get that these voters will never move?

The RINO politicians (McCain, Graham, King) fanatically defend the war in Iraq.  The GOP establishment's foreign policy is inconsistent with both fiscal conservatism and a consistent pro-life position.

[CountryClassSF]

Wish he was a Democrat. He consistently says things on foreign policy that I WISH Democrats said more often.

Above is the type of voter Rand and RINO types try to appeal to, endlessly. The problem is, the party label overcomes everything else. When will they get that these voters will never move?

The RINO politicians (McCain, Graham, King) fanatically defend the war in Iraq.  The GOP establishment's foreign policy is inconsistent with both fiscal conservatism and a consistent pro-life position.

They're RINOs for sure. But not for the reasons you state.

Rand Paul should still apologize.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Wasn't John McCain actually photographed with ISIS in 2013 because we had no idea who we were giving weapons to in Syria? That would seem to validate his point.

[CountryClassSF]

Wasn't John McCain actually photographed with ISIS in 2013 because we had no idea who we were giving weapons to in Syria? That would seem to validate his point.

McCain is a joke. And yes, you're right. But it doesn't excuse what Rand Paul  said. He is sounding like Code Pink.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They couldn't have done it without "Democrats".

[Mr. Reactionary]

http://bluenationreview.com/john-mccain-circa-2013-arm-isis/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

-Saddam keeps keeps religious radicals (relatively) under control
-US removes Saddam
-Various religious fanatics including Al Qaeda in Iraq grow amidst the chaos
-ISIS forms out of this group


This is common knowledge for most people literate in foreign policy.

Don't forget all the warmongering against Iran and Assad, who are basically ISIS's 2 biggest enemies.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hawkish Foreign Policy was an interjection into the Conservative wing of the GOP after the death of Robert Taft, by Bill Buckley. Prior to that the interventionist/internationalists were almost all amongst the moderate to liberal Eastern establishment. The right's cooption of the hawkishness was made possible by the new Sunbelt strategy's heavy concentration of military both active and former, defense industries and so forth and therefore it fit with the new base. And of course, it was all arrayed against the fear of Marxism spreading across the globe. By the nomination of Reagan, to be a Conservative meant both a strong military and an embrace of power projection.

The GOP needs to no longer be dominated by the Bush Foreign policy. It needs a wing that is defined by the more "humble foreign policy" that Bush himself called for after The Balkans. This is necessary in order to bridge the gap to the millenial generation who found their formative years politically defined by opposition to an elective war fought by an administration that pushed the powers of the executive to the limit. As much as a strong national defence is important as well as protecting our interests abroad, any consistent conservative has to be troubled by the empowering of the Presidency under Bush, the lack of concern for civil liberties, the high cost, the mismanagment of Iraq after the invasion and the invasion itself with the benefit of hindsight.

The Bush years represented the embrace of the GOP by so much of what defined the Democrats in the 20th century from Wilson to LBJ and opposition to which powered the GOP to being the outlet for opposition to excessive intervention (Dole's Every War was a Democratic War in the 20th Century) as well as the fear of military and foreign policy weaknesses post Vietnam. There is no need to be so monolithic and comformist around one approach. Such leads invetibly the domination by one set of voices and this proved disastrous in the early War on Terror years when Bush basically ignored other opinions until he lost Congress and finally agreed to the surge.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Wasn't John McCain actually photographed with ISIS in 2013 because we had no idea who we were giving weapons to in Syria? That would seem to validate his point.

These are GOP primary voters we're talking about. You should know that the facts are irrelevant to them.

[publicunofficial]

Rand Paul is a joke.

You're free to think that, but you don't think that because of this, do you?

No, but this is a big part of it. The shark has been jumped. Hillary wouldn't even say this.

But it is an undeniable fact that GOP foreign doctrine under Bush was responsible for destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East at large. I don't understand how it's an outrageous thing to say. We invaded a foreign sovereign nation on phony pretenses. We can't just not have a debate on it. We need to pinpoint, specifically, what went wrong and why it went wrong. Paul acknowledging this is in no way absurd.

This is right. I love Paul on foreign policy, but on domestic and fiscal policy I disagree with him too heavily to ever vote for him.

If it was a Paul vs. D race, and the Democrat equivocally stated that they would seek war with Iran, and the only way to avoid war was voting Paul, then I could see myself breaking party lines.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rand Paul is a joke.

You're free to think that, but you don't think that because of this, do you?

No, but this is a big part of it. The shark has been jumped. Hillary wouldn't even say this.

But it is an undeniable fact that GOP foreign doctrine under Bush was responsible for destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East at large. I don't understand how it's an outrageous thing to say. We invaded a foreign sovereign nation on phony pretenses. We can't just not have a debate on it. We need to pinpoint, specifically, what went wrong and why it went wrong. Paul acknowledging this is in no way absurd.

This is right. I love Paul on foreign policy, but on domestic and fiscal policy I disagree with him too heavily to ever vote for him.

If it was a Paul vs. D race, and the Democrat equivocally stated that they would seek war with Iran, and the only way to avoid war was voting Paul, then I could see myself breaking party lines.

But Hillary, who voted for war with Iran (Kyl-Lieberman), would never seek war with Iran.

[Maxwell]

He should look at how well this kind of rhetoric served his dad. It'll serve him just as well.

Hell, between this and his "Vaccines cause autism" crap, he might just out-crazy his dad.

Yeah, his dad nearly won Iowa and performed very strongly in New Hampshire as an 80 year old Congressman against several experienced politicos who the press took far more seriously. What a failure.

[Free Bird]

Wish he was a Democrat. He consistently says things on foreign policy that I WISH Democrats said more often.

You can vote outside party lines, you know

I can't speek for publicunofficial, but I disagree with Rand on too many issues. I couldn't, in good conscious, vote for him. He's libertarian-leaning. He supports de-regulation and is opposed to gun control. I have a great deal of admiration for his stance on foreign policy and civil liberties, but he's just not my candidate. Although I will say, it would be refreshing to hear Democrats talk more like this.

And what is wrong with loosening up red tape and respecting the Second Amendment?

Loosening up red tape is code for let corporations run wild and unfettered. Citizens have to abide by laws. So should corporations. And using vague language like "loosening up red tape" allows you to skirt the issue. If loosening regulations will be good for the American economy and for American workers, then I'll support it.

And I respect the Second Amendment, but I think background checks and mental health exams are common sense steps to take. Same goes for caps on magazines and an assault weapons ban.

You can't stick to rigid ideology when it comes to issues that affect people's lives. That is reckless and irresponsible. A healthy dose of pragmatism (which does not translate to centrism) is needed to govern. I consider myself pretty open-minded and open to common sense solutions. At the end of the day, that's what this is about, right? Finding solutions? It's not about finding someone to argue with on TV 3 times, and then people vote. Too often, libertarians cling to their rigid ideology and don't budge, even when the solution sometimes goes against their ideology.

Interesting thoughts. I was more referring to loosening red tape for SMALL businesses to let THOSE thrive. I am all in favor of a good old fashioned trustbuster. Background checks and ammo caps we can have a discussion on, but an assault weapon ban... no. Just no. True assault weapons are already banned and have been so for 80 years. A new ban wouldn't keep people safe and would just arbitrarily ban weapons because of appearance, like pistol grips.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

He should look at how well this kind of rhetoric served his dad. It'll serve him just as well.

Hell, between this and his "Vaccines cause autism" crap, he might just out-crazy his dad.

Yeah, his dad nearly won Iowa and performed very strongly in New Hampshire as an 80 year old Congressman against several experienced politicos who the press took far more seriously. What a failure.

He ran three times without ever winning a single state, and is best known for plotting a coup at the convention by placing "shadow delegates" in other people's slates.

[WVdemocrat]

Wish he was a Democrat. He consistently says things on foreign policy that I WISH Democrats said more often.

You can vote outside party lines, you know

I can't speek for publicunofficial, but I disagree with Rand on too many issues. I couldn't, in good conscious, vote for him. He's libertarian-leaning. He supports de-regulation and is opposed to gun control. I have a great deal of admiration for his stance on foreign policy and civil liberties, but he's just not my candidate. Although I will say, it would be refreshing to hear Democrats talk more like this.

And what is wrong with loosening up red tape and respecting the Second Amendment?

Loosening up red tape is code for let corporations run wild and unfettered. Citizens have to abide by laws. So should corporations. And using vague language like "loosening up red tape" allows you to skirt the issue. If loosening regulations will be good for the American economy and for American workers, then I'll support it.

And I respect the Second Amendment, but I think background checks and mental health exams are common sense steps to take. Same goes for caps on magazines and an assault weapons ban.

You can't stick to rigid ideology when it comes to issues that affect people's lives. That is reckless and irresponsible. A healthy dose of pragmatism (which does not translate to centrism) is needed to govern. I consider myself pretty open-minded and open to common sense solutions. At the end of the day, that's what this is about, right? Finding solutions? It's not about finding someone to argue with on TV 3 times, and then people vote. Too often, libertarians cling to their rigid ideology and don't budge, even when the solution sometimes goes against their ideology.

Interesting thoughts. I was more referring to loosening red tape for SMALL businesses to let THOSE thrive. I am all in favor of a good old fashioned trustbuster. Background checks and ammo caps we can have a discussion on, but an assault weapon ban... no. Just no. True assault weapons are already banned and have been so for 80 years. A new ban wouldn't keep people safe and would just arbitrarily ban weapons because of appearance, like pistol grips.

Interesting thoughts as well. Let me say I support loosening regulations on small businesses, it's the big guys who I think don't need a break.

Background checks and ammo caps I think are common sense. It's a little hard for me to see anybody being opposed to them.

Regarding the assault weapons ban, I used to be opposed to it as well, actually until fairly recently. Allow me to explain. I'm not a typical gun-toting WV dixiecrat, I'm a very very liberal Democrat. I've actually never held a gun in my life (unless you count Nerf guns that is, haha), but as a constitutional issue, I used to be on the fence regarding an assault weapons ban. But, as I've thought about it more, the founders really couldn't have anticipated what these weapons would be used for, or the horrors they would cause. And I hate to parrot this slogan, but nobody needs an assault rifle. If someone wants to go hunting, (in the words of Joe Biden) buy a shotgun. We don't need military style weapons in circulation on our streets. That is seriously tempting fate. They serve only to kill people.

And, not to be confrontational, but what would you propose to deal with mass shootings, if not an assault weapons ban? Although, to be clear, I am not saying an assault weapons ban would single-handedly solve the problem, further action would need to be taken.

[bobloblaw]

Certainly in Libya the Dems are responsible for ISIS

[DS0816]

Rand Paul is not finished. He's speaking his mind, he brings a new vision to the GOP, and he will be one of the top contenders in the party. Period.

LOL