d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Rand Paul Has His 47% Moment
1239Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Apr 2 2014 03:41am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/03/30/rand-paul-trashed-military-option-for-iran-and-blamed-the-u-s-for-wwii/

Resident shill Jennifer Rubin is playing her part in passing along a newly-surfaced video from February of 2012 that captures some of Rand Paul's foreign policy views. Some of the highlights include Paul characterizing an Iranian nuke as merely "not a good idea," and a claim that a member of Israeli intelligence believed that the Iranian nuke wouldn't be an existential threat to Israel. He then goes on to make some pretty bizarre claims suggesting that the United States invited Pearl Harbor and possibly World War 2 overall.

Paul's been getting shellacked on FreeRepublic, Gateway Pundit, TeaParty.org, and other chattering grounds that you would expect. It was always true that his foreign policy views were going to rub Republican primary voters the wrong way but this is the last thing that he needs to surface.
Member
Posts: 62,204
Joined: Jun 3 2007
Gold: 9,039.20
Apr 2 2014 03:56am
Far as I'm concerned, Rand and other Democrat-lites are doing nothing positive for the right, they just siphon votes off of would-be Republicans with their empty rhetoric and false promises. Stunts like this will only alienate libertarians and Republican pretenders – (e.g., Paul, et al.) – from their biggest pool of supporters. This is similar to the problems in the UK, their liberal base is fractured between the Tories, BNP, and now UKIP.

It is usually not good to have inner-party conflicts, but at least Republicans are not afraid of calling each other out. You will never find the kind of honesty among Democrats, that being said, Paul and other pretenders should just become Democrats and take the rest of the libertarian movement with them. They are effectively Democrats, voting for Paul or any other Republican pretender is a vote for a Democrat.





Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
Apr 2 2014 04:17am
Quote (Pollster @ Apr 2 2014 07:41pm)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/03/30/rand-paul-trashed-military-option-for-iran-and-blamed-the-u-s-for-wwii/

Resident shill Jennifer Rubin is playing her part in passing along a newly-surfaced video from February of 2012 that captures some of Rand Paul's foreign policy views. Some of the highlights include Paul characterizing an Iranian nuke as merely "not a good idea," and a claim that a member of Israeli intelligence believed that the Iranian nuke wouldn't be an existential threat to Israel. He then goes on to make some pretty bizarre claims suggesting that the United States invited Pearl Harbor and possibly World War 2 overall.

Paul's been getting shellacked on FreeRepublic, Gateway Pundit, TeaParty.org, and other chattering grounds that you would expect. It was always true that his foreign policy views were going to rub Republican primary voters the wrong way but this is the last thing that he needs to surface.


I see nothing wrong with the bold except for inviting ww2.
Member
Posts: 6,015
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Gold: 24,402.34
Apr 2 2014 04:28am
I have no idea what an unnamed member of Israeli intelligence believes, so that seems like a moot point, but we were openly funneling money, equipment, and even personnel to countries Japan was at war with. "Providing material aid to their enemies," if you will.
Member
Posts: 53,433
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 7,525.35
Apr 2 2014 04:39am
Quote (Pollster @ Apr 2 2014 05:41am)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/03/30/rand-paul-trashed-military-option-for-iran-and-blamed-the-u-s-for-wwii/

Resident shill Jennifer Rubin is playing her part in passing along a newly-surfaced video from February of 2012 that captures some of Rand Paul's foreign policy views. Some of the highlights include Paul characterizing an Iranian nuke as merely "not a good idea," and a claim that a member of Israeli intelligence believed that the Iranian nuke wouldn't be an existential threat to Israel. He then goes on to make some pretty bizarre claims suggesting that the United States invited Pearl Harbor and possibly World War 2 overall.

Paul's been getting shellacked on FreeRepublic, Gateway Pundit, TeaParty.org, and other chattering grounds that you would expect. It was always true that his foreign policy views were going to rub Republican primary voters the wrong way but this is the last thing that he needs to surface.


So you twist his words and condemn him for not warmongering enough.
Interesting.

I think its wonderful that he isnt hawking for war with Iran.

Quote (lithfkn @ Apr 2 2014 06:17am)
I see nothing wrong with the bold except forinviting ww2.


He didnt say that. Its just a tactic to make him look bad.
Jennifer Rubin, and Pollster/Jayquik have a very clear anti-rand agenda and this smear-filled hit-piece is part of it.

Heres a counter-article addressing it, coming from a guy who isnt exactly his greatest ally:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/01/jennifer-rubins-amazingly-dishonest-rand-paul-hit-piece/


Heres another from reason.com
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/01/rand-paul-reads-history-likes-bands-that


Quote
Jennifer Rubin, whose blog at The Washington Post serves as a sort of dumping ground for undigested neoconservative talking points, claimed on Sunday that Rand Paul "blamed the U.S. for WWII."

In 2012, you see, Paul suggested that the punitive measures imposed on Germany after World War I helped fuel the resentments Hitler exploited in his rise to power. (The senator specifically cited the Allies' Naval blockade, which extended past the armistice into the middle of 1919.) Paul further offended Rubin by raising the possibility that the embargoes imposed on Japan before World War II played a role in the run-up to Pearl Harbor. Rubin quotes a couple of her acquaintances who think these are very bad things to say (including "a foreign policy expert at a center-left think tank," who apparently needed anonymity to tell us that Paul represents the "unreconstructed Taft-Lindbergh-Buchanan wing of [the] party") before citing Jeane Kirkpatrick's old line, "But then, somehow, they always blame America first." She caps off her post with the boldfaced, italicized question, What else is out there?

Needless to say, Paul's comments are well within the boundaries of mainstream historical debate, and none of them add up to blaming Washington for the Second World War. (One of the policies he criticized—the blockade of Germany—wasn't even really an American project.) Given that his statements came in the context of defending his vote for sanctions on Iran, I'd say the overall thrust of his remarks was, if anything, too hawkish rather than too dovish. There's no need for me to belabor this; Rubin's post is interesting not as a serious critique but as a bellwether. The rise of a relatively anti-interventionist camp in the Republican Party is driving the hawks crazy.


This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 2 2014 04:41am
Member
Posts: 9,180
Joined: Apr 21 2011
Gold: 6,666.66
Apr 2 2014 04:54am
Ha. This is why I was hoping Rand Paul would run for President and actually get the GOP nomination. He's a kook. He's just as bizarre and conspiracy driven as his father. This isolationist stuff and his mixed up understanding of history should surprise no one. Rand Paul's handlers usually keep a lid on this kind of stuff but once in a while he escapes and starts telling us what he really thinks, instead of what he has been trained to say.

Did anyone follow his Senate campaign a few years ago? Late in the campaign, after making bizarre comments about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the Rachel Maddow show, he basically decided to just stop doing most media interviews and taking questions at press conferences. I think he still did some media but it was only Fox or some other friendly conservative media outlet that he could count on to ask softball questions and give him warm fuzzies.

Anyway, it is kind of funny to see Jennifer Rubin and other wingnuts trashing him just for being the uncensored Rand Paul for a moment. I mean really, they didn't know libertarians are isolationists? I think there are some other weird libertarian views that people will laugh at if they come out too. I'm just gonna have to hope Jennifer Rubin and the other right wingers rally around their boy when the evil liberal media starts goofing on him.
Member
Posts: 53,433
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 7,525.35
Apr 2 2014 05:03am
Quote (Pygmalion @ Apr 2 2014 06:54am)
Ha.  This is why I was hoping Rand Paul would run for President and actually get the GOP nomination.  He's a kook.  He's just as bizarre and conspiracy driven as his father.  This isolationist stuff and his mixed up understanding of history should surprise no one.  Rand Paul's handlers usually keep a lid on this kind of stuff but once in a while he escapes and starts telling us what he really thinks, instead of what he has been trained to say.

Did anyone follow his Senate campaign a few years ago?  Late in the campaign, after making bizarre comments about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the Rachel Maddow show, he basically decided to just stop doing most media interviews and taking questions at press conferences.  I think he still did some media but it was only Fox or some other friendly conservative media outlet that he could count on to ask softball questions and give him warm fuzzies.

Anyway, it is kind of funny to see Jennifer Rubin and other wingnuts trashing him just for being the uncensored Rand Paul for a moment.  I mean really, they didn't know libertarians are isolationists?  I think there are some other weird libertarian views that people will laugh at if they come out too.  I'm just gonna have to hope Jennifer Rubin and the other right wingers rally around their boy when the evil liberal media starts goofing on him.


I see you have the hater rhetoric on lockdown, but can you point to a single unreasonable or untrue thing he said in this instance?
Do you not believe in unintended consequences?

Libertarians are not isolationists.
And Rand is also far from an isolationist.
He's not even as much of a non-interventionist as many libertarians would like.
He was defending his vote for sanctions on Iran for god sake.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 2 2014 05:05am
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Apr 2 2014 05:12am
Quote (cambovenzi @ Apr 2 2014 06:39am)
So you twist his words and condemn him for not warmongering enough.
Interesting.

I think its wonderful that he isnt hawking for war with Iran.


I didn't misrepresent a single thing he said, nor did I criticize a single position he stated, so stop embarrassing the fuck out of yourself and learn how to read. There's nothing disingenuous about noting his bizarre claims about World War 2, anyone can clearly see at around the 3:30 mar in the video that Paul professes that the decision to cut off trade with Japan "probably caused Japan to react angrily." He was trying to couch his defense of his position and voting record in a historical context where sometimes sanctions do not result in desirable outcomes, and people can debate on whether or not his view of history is accurate and whether or not his ideas will be successful. No one needs to twist Rand Paul's words or thoughts, they're stupid enough as they are.

The larger story is that his policy positions and his statements puts him firmly at odds with the vast majority of Republican primary voters on these issues. The uncovering of the video comes at a time where other, more competitive national Republican candidates, spent the weekend falling over one another to kiss Sheldon Adelson's ring and adopt his foreign policy goals as their own. These things have massive influence on the invisible primary and all the events taking place inside of it.

Quote (Pygmalion @ Apr 2 2014 06:54am)
Ha.  This is why I was hoping Rand Paul would run for President and actually get the GOP nomination.


Rand Paul as the Republican presidential candidate would be the ultimate gift both to comedy and Democrats. It is not to be though, the Republican party is not that stupid and the Democratic party is not that lucky. Paul is capable of being a major gadfly though, the wide-open field gives him just as much chance as anyone else to grab some spotlight. Yes his Senate campaign was awful, one of the things that gets lost in the whole "Rand Paul as Presidential Candidate" discussion is that he is not a strong campaigner, even at the level he is currently at. It would not at all be surprising if Rand Paul ran for Senate again in 2016 and lost his seat. Jennifer Rubin and her ilk will fall in line when the time comes, you can always count on that.
Member
Posts: 53,433
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 7,525.35
Apr 2 2014 05:17am
Quote (Pollster @ Apr 2 2014 07:12am)
I didn't misrepresent a single thing he said, nor did I criticize a single position he stated, so stop embarrassing the fuck out of yourself and learn how to read. There's nothing disingenuous about noting his bizarre claims about World War 2, anyone can clearly see at around the 3:30 mar in the video that Paul professes that the decision to cut off trade with Japan "probably caused Japan to react angrily." He was trying to couch his defense of his position and voting record in a historical context where sometimes sanctions do not result in desirable outcomes, and people can debate on whether or not his view of history is accurate and whether or not his ideas will be successful. No one needs to twist Rand Paul's words or thoughts, they're stupid enough as they are.

The larger story is that his policy positions and his statements puts him firmly at odds with the vast majority of Republican primary voters on these issues. The uncovering of the video comes at a time where other, more competitive national Republican candidates, spent the weekend falling over one another to kiss Sheldon Adelson's ring and adopt his foreign policy goals as their own. These things have massive influence on the invisible primary and all the events taking place inside of it.


He didnt make the claims you purport that he made.
That is extremely disingenuous and in fact misrepresenting what he actually said.

Was he wrong? Do you reject the existence of unintended consequences?
Does talking about unintended consequences mean he thinks or said that the US "invited pearl harbor"?
No. You are a lying shill.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 2 2014 05:23am
Member
Posts: 9,180
Joined: Apr 21 2011
Gold: 6,666.66
Apr 2 2014 05:29am
Quote (cambovenzi @ Apr 2 2014 07:17am)
He didnt make the claims you purport that he made.
That is extremely disingenuous and in fact misrepresenting what he actually said.

Was he wrong? Do you reject the existence of unintended consequences?
Does talking about unintended consequences mean he thinks the US "invited pearl harbor"?
No. You are a lying shill.


Lol. There we go, rally around your boy. Wingnuts are so predictable.

And since I'm prognosticating, I will also say that Rand Paul will now go on the Rush Limbaugh show, apologize and say the right things, then this will all be forgotten by next week. That is, until the next time Paul drops another of his bizzaro universe gems on us when his handlers turn their backs for a moment.

Quote (Pollster @ Apr 2 2014 07:12am)
No one needs to twist Rand Paul's words or thoughts, they're stupid enough as they are.


Yup.

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
1239Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll