Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hello, Kevin. May I ask what those issues are relative to your positions?

Thanks.

Well, for starters, he's talking about "containing" Russia. What does that mean, and why should the U.S. government be involved in doing it? I'm a non-interventionist so I don't see that containing Russia is in line with non-interventionism, and H.W. was certainly no non-interventionist so that's no good. He also voted for sanctions against Iran despite the fact that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At one point he supported keeping Guantanamo Bay Prison open and continuing the policy of indefinite detention. He seems to have backed off that a little bit recently, but his current views on the issue aren't clear.

These are some of my objections.

But he didn't say contain, he said isolate. Let's not put words in his mouth. Ron was constantly accused of being an isolationist, which was simply a confusion with non-interventionist...both of which are at least understandably similar at least in a certain way of looking at it. So that being the case, what is so wrong with isolating a country? Trade with all nations, alliances with none...right? But we are certainly free to cease trading and cut any ties at all if we feel a nation is causing problems.

Isolate, contain, I don't think it much matters, but yes, I suppose I quoted him incorrectly.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

When compared with what he can do, they were very successful.

Nonsense

They just wouldn't have interfered with your government handouts as much.

I don't get any handouts little friend. And you are welcome to run another loser again. It's no skin off of my nose.

And in your attempt to insult me you admit that they were indeed losers.

Check mate

 

[Paulie]

For example:

"We will isolate Russia if they continue to act like a rogue nation."

https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/442650171177172992

I don't see a problem with this. Depending on what exactly "isolate" means in this case. Assuming it means cutting ties, halting trade, etc, then I don't have a problem with that. It's plenty libertarian to simply say to a nation that we will not associate with you if you keep up the crap.

Much different from threatening force.

That's the problem with Rand though, he keeps things as vague as possible. This was obviously more forceful because people, such as Ted Cruz, are attacking his foreign policy positions at the moment, so he wants to come off as strong. But he can play it just like you said when he's in front of a more libertarian audience.

This is why I prefer to still give him the benefit of the doubt. He's simply much better at being "political" than his father was, which isn't ALWAYS a bad thing...if used correctly. His vagueness is what could ultimately help bring more mainstream support while not necessarily having to deal with the consequence of losing the base.

He definitely seems to be very careful with his words, because he could have just as easily said "contain" and that would have had a much more interventionist ring to it.

I still reserve judgement at this point.

 

[Paulie]

Well, for starters, he's talking about "containing" Russia. What does that mean, and why should the U.S. government be involved in doing it? I'm a non-interventionist so I don't see that containing Russia is in line with non-interventionism, and H.W. was certainly no non-interventionist so that's no good. He also voted for sanctions against Iran despite the fact that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At one point he supported keeping Guantanamo Bay Prison open and continuing the policy of indefinite detention. He seems to have backed off that a little bit recently, but his current views on the issue aren't clear.

These are some of my objections.

But he didn't say contain, he said isolate. Let's not put words in his mouth. Ron was constantly accused of being an isolationist, which was simply a confusion with non-interventionist...both of which are at least understandably similar at least in a certain way of looking at it. So that being the case, what is so wrong with isolating a country? Trade with all nations, alliances with none...right? But we are certainly free to cease trading and cut any ties at all if we feel a nation is causing problems.

Isolate, contain, I don't think it much matters, but yes, I suppose I quoted him incorrectly.

But it kind of does matter though. Isolate has plenty of 'hands-off' connotation to it, as it basically means we would cut ties (not a bad thing)...but contain is basically hands-on, without question. There's a plethora of interventionist tone to such a word...almost threatening, even.

 

[Erand7899]

If the Republicans ever want to win a presidential election again they better get used to Libertarians like Rand Paul as opposed to the McCains and Huckabees of the party.

I disagree. I applaud Rand Paul and consider him a valuable asset for Republicans, especially his ability to speak to young people. However, Rand Paul, or anyone like him, will never get elected to the presidency. Most older voters know that his foreign policy principles no longer fit the modern world.

The current problem with Republicanism is not the message, but the messengers. Few of our current leaders, the Washington establishment, attempt to sell the message, and when they do, they do so only half-heartedly. Many of them don't really believe in it themselves.

Reagan proved that the message resonates with voters, when related in terms that they understand and can support. Rand Paul is right that the way the message is presented makes a difference in how it is perceived.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't see a problem with this. Depending on what exactly "isolate" means in this case. Assuming it means cutting ties, halting trade, etc, then I don't have a problem with that. It's plenty libertarian to simply say to a nation that we will not associate with you if you keep up the crap.

Much different from threatening force.

That's the problem with Rand though, he keeps things as vague as possible. This was obviously more forceful because people, such as Ted Cruz, are attacking his foreign policy positions at the moment, so he wants to come off as strong. But he can play it just like you said when he's in front of a more libertarian audience.

This is why I prefer to still give him the benefit of the doubt. He's simply much better at being "political" than his father was, which isn't ALWAYS a bad thing...if used correctly. His vagueness is what could ultimately help bring more mainstream support while not necessarily having to deal with the consequence of losing the base.

He definitely seems to be very careful with his words, because he could have just as easily said "contain" and that would have had a much more interventionist ring to it.

I still reserve judgement at this point.

Did you see where he said his foreign policy is essentially Bush I's foreign policy? I stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt when he voted for sanctions against Iran.

 

[francoHFW]

PLEASE bring on Rand, Cruz- Top out at 43 per cent and a Golden Dem Age for the country...lol

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But he didn't say contain, he said isolate. Let's not put words in his mouth. Ron was constantly accused of being an isolationist, which was simply a confusion with non-interventionist...both of which are at least understandably similar at least in a certain way of looking at it. So that being the case, what is so wrong with isolating a country? Trade with all nations, alliances with none...right? But we are certainly free to cease trading and cut any ties at all if we feel a nation is causing problems.

Isolate, contain, I don't think it much matters, but yes, I suppose I quoted him incorrectly.

But it kind of does matter though. Isolate has plenty of 'hands-off' connotation to it, as it basically means we would cut ties (not a bad thing)...but contain is basically hands-on, without question. There's a plethora of interventionist tone to such a word...almost threatening, even.

Well I wasn't really thinking, and still don't see much of a difference, but you're right that Rand said "isolate" and not "contain." My mistake regardless.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nonsense

They just wouldn't have interfered with your government handouts as much.

I don't get any handouts little friend. And you are welcome to run another loser again. It's no skin off of my nose.

And in your attempt to insult me you admit that they were indeed losers.

Check mate

Yeah, they lost. Just way less than Rand would.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

PLEASE bring on Rand, Cruz- Top out at 43 per cent and a Golden Dem Age for the country...lol

The rubber room is ------> way

 

[Paulie]

I suppose you could probably assume that something like sanctions could be part of isolating a country, considering how much it cuts them off from the rest of the world. So in a case like that I would definitely be in opposition of such isolation.

But like you said...vague.

Maybe what he says is just good enough to get wider GOP support, without having to resort to actually being an interventionist. If that's true, I can only wish his father would have figured that out. He might be in the oval office right now if he had.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I don't get any handouts little friend. And you are welcome to run another loser again. It's no skin off of my nose.

And in your attempt to insult me you admit that they were indeed losers.

Check mate

Yeah, they lost. Just way less than Rand would.

Put the crack pipe down. None of us have a crystal ball

 

[Duped]

Rand Paul wins the cpac straw poll again!

Bush, and Obama have screwed the nation to the extreme. Now that Obama's approval rating is hovering around whale shit; his BS elucidated. The younger generation may generate more enthusiasm for libertarians. It is obvious that liberalism is destroying America, and Bush, Chenny, Rowe, and Morris types are suspect.

Rand Paul comes accross as honest

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rand Paul wins much-watched CPAC presidential poll

2000+ respondents

Not much of a sampling but sure, why not. Its his turn.

Does this mean he'll be the first to fall come the general election?

 

[francoHFW]

We're still running Reaganism- a catastrophe for everyone but the rich......only brainwashing keeps it going.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And in your attempt to insult me you admit that they were indeed losers.

Check mate

Yeah, they lost. Just way less than Rand would.

Put the crack pipe down. None of us have a crystal ball

Neither are required, just watch a few decades of politics in America.

Here's a simple rule for you. If you really like the guy, he can't win nationally.

 

[Erand7899]

If the Republicans ever want to win a presidential election again they better get used to Libertarians like Rand Paul as opposed to the McCains and Huckabees of the party.

A Libertarian can never win nationally. They're too nutty.

As opposed to the "electable" John McCains and Mitt Romneys of the world.

John McCain was never electable, and Mitt Romney was handicapped by bad political advice. He should have campaigned as the man he was, and not the man that his handlers thought would endear him to the moderates.

If we can find a real conservative, with the ability to articulate his views, like Reagan did, we can take this country back in a landslide.

 

[Paulie]

That's the problem with Rand though, he keeps things as vague as possible. This was obviously more forceful because people, such as Ted Cruz, are attacking his foreign policy positions at the moment, so he wants to come off as strong. But he can play it just like you said when he's in front of a more libertarian audience.

This is why I prefer to still give him the benefit of the doubt. He's simply much better at being "political" than his father was, which isn't ALWAYS a bad thing...if used correctly. His vagueness is what could ultimately help bring more mainstream support while not necessarily having to deal with the consequence of losing the base.

He definitely seems to be very careful with his words, because he could have just as easily said "contain" and that would have had a much more interventionist ring to it.

I still reserve judgement at this point.

Did you see where he said his foreign policy is essentially Bush I's foreign policy? I stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt when he voted for sanctions against Iran.

Yeah I definitely don't like that at all. I'm not even sure why he would say that because so far his rhetoric and actions are nothing like Bush I's.

I don't agree with the sanctions either. I wish he didn't have that on his record because it's a huge blemish. But that was years ago and is still his only blemish. If he's backing off on his statements about Gitmo, that's good.

I'm simply going to judge these people on their actions. I really don't care what they SAY. It's well known that politicians say things they don't actually believe in, or mean, all the time for a political purpose. It's what he does with that vote that matters to me.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

PLEASE bring on Rand, Cruz- Top out at 43 per cent and a Golden Dem Age for the country...lol

The rubber room is ------> way

You're right of course that Rand/Cruz belong in a rubber room but there is a small minority of people who would actually vote for them. Neither are pro-America or pro-American and both have lied a LOT.

But, add to the mix the gerrymandering and vote theft the right is so good at - they could make a showing.

Doubt either could get close to the WH though.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A Libertarian can never win nationally. They're too nutty.

As opposed to the "electable" John McCains and Mitt Romneys of the world.

John McCain was never electable, and Mitt Romney was handicapped by bad political advice. He should have campaigned as the man he was, and not the man that his handlers thought would endear him to the moderates.

If we can find a real conservative, with the ability to articulate his views, like Reagan did, we can take this country back in a landslide.

One, you don't have one. Two, that's not who Reagan was. Three, that's not how Reagan won.