Putting aside the hilarity of your commentary, no one has said that Rand Paul physically said the words. Once again, he used a characterization of historical events in an attempt to validate the defense of his position. There's no point in even attempting to refute the rationale because Paul is clearly comfortable with that extrapolation because in his mind it lends credibility to his position.

The interest is not on his views or how he squares them, but how the stark contrast will impact the foreign policy discussion among presidential primary competitors. The exposure on these types of comments is the type of thing that makes Rand Paul's chance of winning go from small to microscopic.



None of that crop is comparable to Obama though. The only thing they have in common is, if they do decide to run, they ran for president before completing a term in the U.S. Senate. A lot of people have still failed to understand the lessons of 2008. They think that the only thing it takes to run for president now is being in the Senate for a couple of years and making a conscientious choice to dive for as many television cameras as possible/do as many Fox News interviews as possible. That crop is not going to be able to replicate the "Obama model," largely because they aren't him and because they don't have the advantages he had. They would need tremendous assistance to so much as propel them to the nomination.

Hell, Rubio and Paul would probably start off as even money in their own reelection campaigns. What worked for Obama is not going to work for any other candidate for a long, long time. The past few years have shown the big pains at home for the Senators who even attempt to replicate the Obama model. Rubio has struggled so hard that he might even be caught napping if he waffles on whether or not to run for president. That in itself might cause him to bow out early and rehab his image in Florida and with the national party.

@bogie
Ill elaborate upon my 3 objections.

1. We're not "isolations" [sic] or isolationists.
2. The speech the thread is about was him defending his vote FOR sanctions on Iran, so clearly he isnt always completely opposed to the idea.
3. If we are aggressed upon using force in response is justified. That doesnt mean warmongering or going to war over every little thing tho. As he was saying, there are often unintended consequences of our actions aside from the immediate death destruction and waste.


nothing more than biased unfounded conjecture.


If using sound logic and learning from history to advocate a less hawkish foreign policy lowers his chances, so be it.
Personally I think people are quite tired of war.

That is literally your position.

Sanctions are decried, action is refused, and the conversation is constantly contextualized to portray the "reasonableness" of the opposing powers aggressive territorial aim.

Russia has a "legitimate interest" in Ukraine, whereas the Umited States has no interest anywhere at all.

To my knowledge, the U.S. wanted lesser restrictions on Germany after WW1 but it was the UK (or BE for British Empire back then) and France that slammed home the huge penalties.

The Fillipino's are pro-USA today because even though American rule was oppressive, Japan was worse when they took over.

Not at all. It's simple math, which is something that you've long proven to be too stupid, or uninformed, to understand. This exact point was even demonstrated at length in a previous thread, you merely receded into a bubble because you don't like the picture that reality paints.

Neither Paul nor Rubio have the requisite appeal or favorability to ward off top-tier challengers in 2016 should they run for reelection. If Alison Grimes doesn't defeat Mitch McConnell this year then she could choose to turn around and challenge Paul in 2016, and she'd start out on even ground even ignoring the fact that Paul is a weaker opponent than McConnell. Rubio's state is moving away from him, and there's no shortage of top-tier candidates who will pull the trigger on 2016 especially if they learn a year earlier that Hillary Clinton is running for president.

They are not strong reelection prospects like Cruz is (for another cycle or two), and none of them are situated like Obama was to catapult to the top of his party.

ok.

Yeah man simple math. Popular incumbent republican. (much more so than McConnel)
Republicans are threatening to take over the senate majority.
The democrats haven't had a senator in Kentucky this century? NO PROBLEM!
That means he will likely be an underdog! DUH!

Considering Rand is right, what's "bizarre" about his comments? We were Japan's principal oil supplier. They pretty much reacted the same way WE DID when Iraq threatened OUR oil supplies.

Japan was a militaristic state that was endangering the region and killing millions.

False equivalencies aren't helpful.