According to Breitbart.com, Sen. Rand Paul is making his distinctions from his father quite clear:
A little more insight to Rand Paul - he ran under the Republican ticket and not as a Libertarian. Lie #1. His son was also just arrested for alcohol-related crimes (underage drinking). Will he be the next Father of the Year after Billy Boy Clinton? Perhaps he should concentrate on his parenting before his political career.
Unfortunately the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. For this reason I don't find Rand to be such a great presidential candidate. I actually really liked his agenda in the past but when he endorsed Romney over Gingrich he showed his lack of good judgment call. If more could have stood behind Newt we wouldn't be stuck with the mess we have now.
Despite my fears of his foreign policy I hope he runs. As of this moment he is the ONLY Republican politician out there in the press fighting vociferously against the president and the abuse of the democrats. He has the balls to be out there and he is incredibly articulate. Thank goodness for him.
I hop Rand does run. I think he would be an awesome candidate. Please dont automatically dismiss him before you hear him because of his father. I would have voted for him over Mitt this last go round.
I spoke with Rand face to face here in Lexington KY when he was running for office. I asked him how his foreign policy differed from his fathers, he said to me..
"There are those who think we should be everywhere all the time, and there are those who think we shouldn't be anywhere any time. I believe that if we do go to war, it needs to be exactly that, a declared war."
Again, this was nearly 3 years ago from memory. He made it clear that there are 2 types of thinking, those like Bill Kristol and National Review (Neo Conservatives) who think we need to be a global force, and there are those who thing we should bring all our troops home (Ron Paul, Alex Jones etc.) I think Rand takes the sensible position that we need to be where we need to be, and when we are done, then we come home. We do it legally and constitutionally.
What I do like about Rand is the fact that all the hardcore Ron Paul supporters hate him.
In 2008 Ron Paul sounded like a lunatic to me. Completely insane. In 2011, Ron Paul said the same things running for President again, and sounded like the only grown up in the room. I'd give Rand a listen. Why not?
I wouldn't feel too awful if I woke up one morning and Rand was sitting behind the Oval Office Desk.
But I have to say it: he is not 100% committed to restoration, and he definitely is NOT the best articulator of conservative, constitutional principles. Until he gets that, he's not the guy we need. Not even close.
In fairness to Rand, he's probably at least as committed to Restoration as Allen West, and maybe even has a slight edge over West in that area. But he isn't even in the same league as West when it comes to articulating the American concepts of individual liberty.
Vote West, my friends. You owe it to your grandchildren.
Rand Paul in Israel: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=298674
ZoNation Speaking about the GOP NOT allowing Dems to elect first woman POTUS: http://youtu.be/lVWHVrDQFdo
The Hill article calling Chris Christie the 'GOP Churchill' & Hillary's "most formidable opponent" http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/276493-christie-the-gop-churchill
Conservatives+Republicans+Libertarians+Paulbots+Democrats who got slapped up side the head with reality= pretty darn good odds.
as long as he doesn't call bradley manning a patriot or says he respects dennis kucinich I will consider him.
I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of his foreign policy stands. I believe we should pull out of Europe and Asia and stop giving money to other countries when we can't afford it and they hate us.
I believe we should stop nation building. How another country runs itself is no concern of ours. The only reason why we are in the Middle East is for the oil. If we fully developed our domestic resources we could pull out and let them blow each other up.
I believe we can cut DOD spending by almost half and still fulfill our National Security needs.
This outlines Rand Paul's Foreign Policy. he is not like his dad, he does differ with him on Several things. http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-foreign-policy/
this is one quote from the article:
Paul also said President Barack Obama is “not very different” than former President George W. Bush. The Senator from Kentucky has proposed ending America’s $30 billion in aid to Israel. He called the United Nations a quote “forum for dictators.”
His father, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) favors withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Get the troops out of Afghanistan and end that war that has helped us and hasn't helped anyone in the Middle East,” said Ron Paul during the first Republican primary debate.
But unlike his father, the younger Paul is not proposing immediate withdrawal of US troops, and said he supports increasing the percentage of America’s budget spent on the Pentagon—despite an 81 percent increase in defense spending since 2001.
“When I prioritize spending, I think national defense is a constitutional function of government, so I think that it would have a priority for me over all other spending really,” he said.
The corrpt GOP elite will sabotage him. He needs to lead an independent conservative pro constitution party. The GOP is finished. Let them split the idiot vote with the Marxists.
Trouble is most don't know what Constitution means or how it's applicable within the law, establishes the law, and how past precedent effects that.
I hear many proclaim "Constitution!" but know little of it or it's applications. Two and half centuries of cause and effect cannot be wiped clean like a chalk board.
A distraction. America's salvation will not come from Washington DC, but rather from us as individuals, and on the state level.
I read this thread and I see many things but mostly what I see is people making the exact same mistakes as the left.
People in reality are still looking for a moral socially and fiscally conservative Republican but none are on the horizon and none will come until we come to an agreement of what socially and fiscally conservative means. It doesn't mean libertarian or neo-con for me nor does it mean fluid morals.
The simple fact is that those already hinting at running and gearing up have failed. Yes Rand and Rubio that means you.
In the next four years I hope that my fellow Americans will learn what the difference between governing and politics actually is. It is crucial that you do.
I like West but we should see what develops. Desperately throwing our support behind the boy du jour just makes us desperate and pathetic.
There is a great big difference between speculation and actual promotion...and generally speaking promotion in this country comes at the behest of the liberal media. Media very slyly puts the person front and center in the news and people glom on and they become the celebrity candidate. That is the how and the way media picks our candidates. We let them.
When you have one bullet in your gun you better make it count. Putting forth a candidate this early gives the left far too much time to take him down or the candidate far too much time to take himself down.
And I don't give a crap if the left wants to call me a racist or anyone else. They have killed the word quite frankly and that has it's own repercussions. I WILL NOT LET OTHERS DEFINE ME NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. I like West, Scott, Cain, and many other black men not because they are black but because they hold my ideals and are extremely intelligent. Now if being black is what helped them to form that intellect then more power to them. Whatever it takes.
Further again, today I discovered a video from another black quarter, Dr. Manning in Harlem, and here's the link:
Another powerful voice for real change. I looked up what "Atlah" means, and it revealed something to me that has been on my mind, for real, for quite some time: a vision of a powerful uprising of black men from the most unexpected places. Check out this link as well and put it all together--
Now, here's another reason why it is useful to speculate--it just might end up being prophecy! Don't know if you believe in prophecy, but I do, and I believe it is still being given to us. We hold thoughts and ideas, visions, in our upturned hands, and wait ...maybe it is the Lord speaking to us.
What a fruitful discussion this may turn out to be! What a day. This is the day the lord hath made!
Hope springs eternal, with the Lord God Almighty!
Thought about it and don't really agree. Further, would like to see West/Scott ticket with Cain as Secretary of Commerce and Labor.
It's about a couple of principles. One, we need radical change now and visions give us strength and courage, even if they may change/evolve into somethng better down the road. Two, what we think about what is occuring now reflects what we are learning freshly about truth: These men are powerful black men who together could infuse a sense of true American ideals into the country in a way no others could.
It is obvious how they could do so, and that informs us how to respond to ignorant villification of conservatives as rascists, and protestations that liberalism is the only thing going today that will save the African American, other minority peoples, and the country.
It is useful to speculate.
Well spoken, Laurel as always, my friend! It certainly, does make one wonder about the objectives of someone that would annouce this so early. Shore up support or eliminate a competitor, maybe? But, your right it really doesn't matter at this point. We still MUST deal with the Marxist in office now.
For anyone concerned about Rand Paul's view of Israel, please read this... I think he makes some very compelling arguments about how we can REALLY be helping Israel.
Here is MY view of foreign policy. We won the war of Europe in the 40's. WHY ARE WE STILL THERE? The reason they brought about this European Socialism is WE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR IT, by hugely supplementing their military. We need to get out, if we would not have been there, they would have had to pay for their own military, would not have had the economy based on our spending, and would NOT have experimented with socialized medicine.
We need to bring them home. Plain and Simple. We have long range missiles and Bombers to alley any problems before our forces can mobilize and get there anywhere in the world within 18 hours.
To an extent you are correct but to another extent you aren't. We can still have bases in Europe without propping up socialism. Europe effectively used their support for the USA as a bargaining chip to get that prop up.
Also we are there still and around the world because we were very close to losing WWII from getting caught with our pants down. We lost thousands of lives due to this. We have a lot of resources in this country so trying to be Switzerland won't wash. We must defend our resources and always be prepared to defend ourselves. Peace will always be found on the other side of war.
Remember too that geography also plays an important role in our base placement and in correlation to problems in the world.
Your absolutely right. Pulling our bases from around the world only gets applause if you don't actually look at the consequences. As far as saving money is concerned it's laughable. We could probably put a dozen more outposts around the world with the savings from the absurdities our government now funds, which by the way could fill 20 large volumes.
That MAY have been true in the first 30 years after the war, however, we have advanced in technology since then. Again, we can send missiles anywhere in the world in about 30 minutes, we still have a Navy that can inflict great harm in a matter of hours to almost any place on the planet, at least until we can have boots on the ground in as little as 20 hours.
NOW an exception would be IF THEY CHOOSE TO PAY US TO BE THERE. Then I would be ok with it. But this is a total waste of taxpayers money.
How do you know they aren't paying?
You are absolutely dead wrong on this. I wish it were as simple as you make it but I know a few military logistics people that would disagree with you. this is not a new discussion for me.
Clinton thought the same thing and yet still we needed troops on the ground............. The governments job is to protect us and the constitution. Thats it....So why do so many complain then they actually do their job?
I am understanding the point, exactly. Our weapons delivery systems have been updated from b-42's and p-57's that our Air Force (albeit Army Air Force then) and navy had at the end of WW2. Our military cut their military costs since we were "In Theater", which had the unintended consequence of subsidizing them so they could develop European Socialism, which now has been exported here to bankrupt our economy. If we had left in the late 50's they would have either not attempted the socialism or they would have been bankrupted within 15 years instead of in the last few years.
Our military has far better capabilities than you seem to be giving them credit for. Our weapons delivery can be employed in less than an hour to anywhere on the globe with our missile systems, our Naval forces can be in theater in less than 5 hours anywhere in Europe via fighter jets and smart weapon technology. Our Air Force long range bombers would then take over, and lastly boots on the ground within 18 hours. I am not sure why you are digging in with 60 year old military tactics.
You are not understanding the point....It isn't them we are protecting it is us, our resources and interests.
If we are there protecting them, they should pay, if not we should leave. Again, our technology has increased to a point we do not need to be present in theater immediately. Besides, even if we are, the commander in chief could tell our guys to stand down, which just happened.
We got boots on the ground after telegraphing our punch for how long? And we got boots on the ground due to the fact we had what stationed in the Gulf?
We give a lot defense freebies to Europe that need not be but in reality the ink dried on those contracts to give freebies before we were born. We have become co-dependent with Europe.
Look I'm not saying we can't cut back but I am also not saying isolationism is a good thing either. We have done that too many times in history and it didn't work out well.
And there is still no getting around the fact that at the end of the day it still comes down to boots on the ground. The minute you show a weak spot or create a void it will be exploited.
laurel, how long did it take to get boots on the ground in bagdad? We did shock and awe for days, which allowed for setup of the land war/.
We still have ally status with most of Europe, and I am sure it would not be a matter of hours for any force to take over all of Europe.
The act of our removing forces from Europe would cause them to stop depending on us and OUR MONEY. England has a capable military as does Germany. I was stationed at Lakenheath England for 4 years in the mid 80's, and know the RAF could handle the 20 hours it would take to get our forces on the way.
Again, we have a capable Navy that can strike anywhere in Europe or Southwest Asia within hours.
That is pure baloney that you deluding yourself into thinking it is Filet Mignon. At the end of the day it still comes down to boots on the ground and how many as well as how fast you can get them there. Boots on the ground secure the area as opposed to losing lives in the process of securing the area. Drones are not a substitute for everything and we cannot always mobilize to every part of the world as fast as you say but one thing that makes that possible is the fact that we have the tools in place all over the world that make that possible.
Yes we may need to pull back some just due to the expense and the spending here, and we certainly need to stop propping up socialism in Europe but currently it is in our interest to do so. You can rant and rail, pis and moan, but those that made the bad deals of being the world's police force are long gone so it does no good. If Europe falls so does all of Western Civilization which includes us. We are not big enough or good enough to stand up to the entire rest of the world.
Okay, I have no problem with him running, and would like to see what he has in his campaign and to the debates.
As a Libertarian-Republican who is excited about this choice, does this automatically make me a PaulBot or do I need to be socially liberal and have some crazy conspiracy theory first?
Just wondering what the rules of the game are...