Quote (cambovenzi @ Apr 4 2014 08:19pm)

Right what I say means 'nothing' but your wild speculation bought and paid for by the democratic party means the world.

Its funny you forgot to mention that Rand Paul is wildly more popular in Kentucky than the "5 term incumbent minority leader"

No he obviously wouldn't start as an even money bet. Its nothing more than foolish conjecture on your part to make him look bad.

Quote (Santara @ Apr 4 2014 04:14pm)

Pretty sure Nanking disagrees.

Quote (bogie160 @ Apr 4 2014 11:40pm)

They brutalized China and quite literally killed millions of people, this isn't debatable outside of the fringe right in Japan.

Japan had lost control of their state to a radical group of militarists who brought ruin to their country.

The Japanese had imperial ambitions in East Asia, the United States wanted soft power and trade. The United States was a better future for everyone except the Japanese militarists.

This is why America is Japan's only (and I literally mean only) ally, whereas America enjoys wide support in the region.

Quote (Pollster @ Apr 5 2014 07:19am)

Yes, your bubble-babble bullshit that's devoid of facts means nothing. I haven't offered any "wild speculation," only simple facts. And they aren't "bought and paid for" by anyone, they're freely available to anyone who knows how to use Google. It's quite easy to differentiate the standing of a popular incumbent [See: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/07/3075051/beshear-enjoys-high-approval-rating.html] from an incumbent who is not [See: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/06/3073022/56-percent-of-kentucky-republicans.html]

Wow would you look at that, magic! The best poll in Kentucky, which has Democrat Alison Grimes running ahead of McConnell by 4 points, also found Beshear's job approval at a solid 54%-34% while Paul's job approval is a middling 46%-45%. Look at that, one poll that matches consensus findings smashes every single one of your delusions at once!

Rand Paul is not "wildly more popular" than McConnell. McConnell is unpopular based on his own merits, but that means absolutely nothing regarding Paul. The fact that there's a distance between McConnell and his colleague in break-even territory only speaks to how unpopular McConnell is.

And, yes, he would start his reelection campaign as an even-money bet. If you put your face in a book and learned how elections work in this country then you might realize that rather than choosing to rely on a series of comforting delusions. There is more than one popular, talented Democratic candidates in Kentucky and they would not be scared off by a gaffe-prone incumbent with middling approval, especially in a presidential cycle that could feature a powerful Democrat at the top of the ticket who might offer considerable coattails.

Quote (bogie160 @ Apr 4 2014 10:43pm)

It's anti-American to blame us for behavior excused of other powers.

We're a moral people in our own way, we have a right to refuse to condone atrocities and oppose them, if necessary, with force.

Libya was a dirty political affair, but Qaddafi was a pretty disgusting guy and his regime was abhorrent. I'm ok with doing what we did.

Quote (Caedus @ Apr 5 2014 08:39am)

Difficult to control hordes of troops against an enemy who's been your rival for essentially all of history.

Quote (Caedus @ Apr 5 2014 08:39am)

Difficult to control hordes of troops against an enemy who's been your rival for essentially all of history.



It was all in war. That's not debatable. Atrocities happen, ask American soldiers in Okinawa.

Japan never lost control of their state. The emperor was always ambitious and the military became one of the most powerful institutions because of this.

Japan didn't just have imperial ambitions, they were the imperial power in East Asia. Let's not kid ourselves, the US had much larger imperial plans that were hampered by the Chinese Civil War.

Quote (Santara @ Apr 5 2014 10:57am)

Where am I "excusing other powers?"

The only reason Gaddafi is taking a dirt nap was his proposal to take Libyan oil off the dollar.

Quote (bogie160 @ Apr 5 2014 01:48pm)

You're implying it's an equally grey moral relationship.

Qaddafi didn't have the power to overthrow the American dollar as a world currency, it's more important that his enemies were our allies and he exposed himself as vulnerable at a time when we could take advantage of it.

He was a pretty terrible guy and the world is better without him.

Quote (Santara @ Apr 5 2014 01:54pm)

Yon inferred. It is easily a standalone argument that the US is a warmongering nation and has been for the last 60ish years.

Not sole power, just enough power to start the cascade. OPEC knows full well we are exporting our inflation to them. Given the option, they'll take better money for their products.

Quote (bogie160 @ Apr 5 2014 01:58pm)

The Gulf States use our dollars to buy into sovereign wealth funds, so their returns beat inflation. It's China and Russia that lose a lot of geopolitical clout from having to deal in American dollars, and they're also the most vocal critics. Qaddafi was upset because he was a dictator and therefore sanctioned, the regular Gulf States are pretty happy with the status quo.

Quote (Santara @ Apr 5 2014 02:08pm)

And their returns could be even better if not denominated in potentially worthless currency. The US shows no signs of stopping the growth of our massive debt, and a default would tank their holdings virtually overnight. Their eggs are in one basket. Africa as a whole had a lot to gain because Gaddafi was essentially demanding gold for oil. http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

Quote (bogie160 @ Apr 5 2014 02:12pm)

The most secure securities are all bought on American exchanges with American currency. There is no "gold" stock market, and nobody wants to keep all their eggs in a Russian or Chinese basket.

Quote

GOP hawks are reportedly nervous about the potential level of support Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) could enjoy if he decides to run for president in 2016. On Monday Zeke J. Miller wrote in TIME about how several prominent Republican donors at the Republican Jewish Coalition suggested that the billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who spent more than $100 million backing both the Newt Gingrich and the Mitt Romney presidential campaigns in 2012 and has advocated for the nuking of Iran, is likely to invest in an anti Paul campaign if the Kentucky senator looks like he will do well in primaries. According to Miller's reporting, one unnamed former Mitt Romney bundler thinks that Paul could win both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

Over at her blog at The Washington Post the neoconservative writer Jennifer Rubin has been demonstrating a fascination with Paul that borders on obsession. Recent headlines include "Rand Paul is the odd man out of the GOP on foreign policy," "Rand Paul seems confused," and "Rand Paul's fake foreign policy." One of Rubin's recent blog posts is titled "Rand Paul trashed military option for Iran and blamed the U.S. for WWII," claims David Harsanyi dismissed in a post at The Federalist. Rubin has also repeatedly called Paul an isolationist, despite the fact that he isn't one.

That Adelson and GOP hawks view Paul as a threat and Rubin thinks he is worthy of so much attention is a testament to the impact the junior senator has had on the Republican Party since being sworn in back in January 2011. Like his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Rand Paul has argued for a foreign policy less aggressive than the foreign policies implemented under recent presidents. If you're a pro-war Republican and you don't want a Democrat in the White House in 2017 a Paul presidential bid is understandably an unnerving prospect. However, unfortunately for Republican hawks not only is Paul right to be concerned about interventionist foreign policies, most Americans agree with him.

Although perhaps not a popular stance among neoconservatives, Paul represented the views of the majority of Americans when he opposed military intervention in Syria. After the White House claimed that it did not need congressional approval to carry out military strikes against the Assad regime in the wake of chemical attacks on the outskirts of Damascus last August, Paul wrote a TIME op-ed outlining why he was opposed to a military intervention in Syria. A few days after Paul's op-ed was published NBC reported that almost sixty percent of Americans wanted their representatives in Congress to vote against military intervention in Syria.

This non-interventionist sentiment has not only been on display in relation to the conflict in Syria. According to the most recent Reason-Rupe Poll almost sixty percent of Americans want the U.S. to stay out of the Ukraine conflict altogether, and only 31 percent back sanctions. Even if the situation in Ukraine worsens, and Russia sends troops into more of Ukraine, 76 percent of Americans say that they would still oppose sending U.S. troops to the region.

It is not only Reason's polling that has highlighted Americans' lack of enthusiasm for foreign intervention. Pew polling from late last year shows that over 50 percent of Americans believe that "The U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own," and an overwhelming majority believe that we should be concentrating more on domestic concerns rather than problems abroad.

That Americans are tired of foreign military engagements should not be a surprise. The war in Afghanistan, arguably the most unpopular war in American history, and the war in Iraq have highlighted how awful prolonged military conflicts are not only on American lives but also on the American economy and the state of Americans' civil liberties.

Perhaps some in the GOP should consider that Americans are tired of having successive Democratic and Republican administrations implementing expensive and over-stretched foreign policies. Although not perfect, Paul supports a foreign policy most Americans could back and is making a conscious effort to appeal to the left on issues such a drug sentencing reform and mass government surveillance. However, the Republican Party has demonstrated more than enough times that it is bad at seizing opportunities, and it shouldn't be surprising if wealthy GOP hawks do all they can to jeopardize Paul's widely expected 2016 presidential bid.