Rand Paul front runner in Iowa New Hampshire

[jahsoul]

other people have correctly pointed out that paul has an isolationism problem...while 'noninterventionism' is becoming more popular in the republican party nowdays...

You do know that non interventionism was a policy practice by most of our good presidents right? Just to throw this out there, I invite you to read George Washington's Farewell Address. I can give you a few good tidbits.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

I was just throwing that out there because we have too many hawks who are so ready to send this country into fighting other nation wars, without the courage to go fight or send their own children into battle. The US is not the World's police and that type of thinking is the reason that most nations hate us.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Lest we forget, the GOP are warmongers plain and simple. They have a problem with pushing the nation into deep debt by spending trillions in handouts to lazy (and often addicted) immoral liberals and the illegal aliens who dropout of school to start a life of crime associating with street gangs and cartels but zero problem pushing the nation into deep debt by spending trillions to warmonger all over the planet including another uber-serious Cold War with Russia who was our ally just a few years ago

russia has never been our ally...at the very best there was a short interlude when russia was in no political or economic condition to be belligerent...that interlude has ended and the cold war which russia never had any intention of ending in the first place has resumed...

i for one am glad that there is at least one political party in the united states that doesn't share your rosy view of the single most irresponsible and dangerous country on the planet...at least not for now...hopefully the buchananists and paulites and other deluded russophiles will continue to be mostly excluded the republican mainstream...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

You do know that non interventionism was a policy practice by most of our good presidents right? Just to throw this out there, I invite you to read George Washington's Farewell Address. I can give you a few good tidbits.



I was just throwing that out there because we have too many hawks who are so ready to send this country into fighting other nation wars, without the courage to go fight or send their own children into battle. The US is not the World's police and that type of thinking is the reason that most nations hate us.

what worked well in the eighteenth century is not necessarily going to work today...washington would not have foreseen the need for an air force in 1797 either...

noninterventionism is simply unwise in the modern world where our enemies can be within our airspace in a matter of hours...a proactive foreign policy is essential nowdays...

this does not usually mean direct military engagement with our troops sent into foreign territory...a false dichotomy that the isolationists like to create with the policies they advocate...we have many other options...most of which the 'noninterventionists' are not willing to use either...

we may not be 'the world's police'...but when there are no effective 'police' then a 'neighborhood watch' is often a wise thing to implement...simply fortifying your own house is usually not effective...

 

[jahsoul]

what worked well in the eighteenth century is not necessarily going to work today...washington would not have foreseen the need for an air force in 1797 either...

noninterventionism is simply unwise in the modern world where our enemies can be within our airspace in a matter of hours...a proactive foreign policy is essential nowdays...

this does not usually mean direct military engagement with our troops sent into foreign territory...a false dichotomy that the isolationists like to create with the policies they advocate...we have many other options...most of which the 'noninterventionists' are not willing to use either...

we may not be 'the world's police'...but when there are no effective 'police' then a 'neighborhood watch' is often a wise thing to implement...simply fortifying your own house is usually not effective...

We don't need a neighbor watch neither. But tell me why a proactive foreign policy is necessary? If you look through history, you would see that our "proactive" foreign policy (sidenote, funny how so many "conservatives" adhere to a policy started by progressives) is the reason we have enemies. Let me ask you something. Why did we have to involve ourselves in WWI? Why was a fleet out of San Jose working in Pearl Harbor? Currently, what was the root cause for Al Qaeda's hatred towards the US? But I digress...

Whether you would like to ignore history or not, our interventionist foreign policy has put this country in more danger than the non interventionist thought of the past. And please, learn that there is a difference between an isolation and a non interventionist, main point being, non interventionist believe in open trade with foreign countries but not the intermingling of politics. So as it relates to the results of being an interventionist, I believe that our forefathers where spot on.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Rachel, it is desirable for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate and forgo a new Cold War which we're presently accelerating toward full steam ahead that has hot war potential. Obviously, that's not good.

You have some deep seated animosity toward Russia that causes you to desire and seek enmity between our two countries. That's your own personal problem. It's not mine and it's not desirable for either country's future.

So your personal problem aside, the Russian Federation is NOT the Soviet Union. It's not a Marxist state atheistic political construct dedicated to our destruction as the Soviet Union was and we should not be treating the Russian Federation as if it were. Nothing good has, is, or will come from doing so.

As you know, prior to entering World War II the United States gave the Soviet Union millions of dollars worth of weapons and other support for their fight against Nazi Germany and the two nations became allies in the liberation of Europe.

At war's end, unfortunately, the Soviet Union did not vacate the countries they occupied leading British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to describe this territory as being behind an Iron Curtain. The division provided the framework for the Cold War which ran from roughly 1947 to 1991. During those years, obviously, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were in a global geo-political struggle for supremacy which we thankfully won.

The end of the Cold War gave the United States and Russia new opportunities to cooperate and they began to. Russia took over the permanent seat (with full veto power) previously held by the Soviet Union at the United Nations Security Council and we began to work together for the first time since the end of WWII.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has meddled in Russia's internal affairs even to the point of trying to force the homosexual agenda upon Russia's children as is currently occurring in the U.S.. This outraged the Russian people and they have reacted in opposition. Worse, NATO invited former Soviet nations to join the alliance against the Russian Federation instead of simply engaging in trade and diplomacy with these countries and leaving them in a buffer zone between NATO and the Russian Federation. Russia viewed this for what it was: a military threat. Hence, their reaction to it.

ALL of this was avoidable and desirable to avoid. But wisdom did not rule the day and, as a result, we are currently going into dangerous waters... waters you want us to enter. Shame on you Rachel for that.

russia has never been our ally...at the very best there was a short interlude when russia was in no political or economic condition to be belligerent...that interlude has ended and the cold war which russia never had any intention of ending in the first place has resumed...

i for one am glad that there is at least one political party in the united states that doesn't share your rosy view of the single most irresponsible and dangerous country on the planet...at least not for now...hopefully the buchananists and paulites and other deluded russophiles will continue to be mostly excluded the republican mainstream...

 

[SonInMe]

Ronald Reagan received a ton of crossover votes.

You do not have to go to the middle to get more votes.

Conservatism without morality has no foundation. Libertarianism is selfish.

The real problem here is yet another ''republican'' being named a frontrunner so the media can tear them down.

 

[jahsoul]

Libertarianism is selfish.

That's the first time I've ever heard this. But then again, I was told that since I'm a Constitutionalist, that I must be a Libertarian. *shrugs*

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

We don't need a neighbor watch neither. But tell me why a proactive foreign policy is necessary? If you look through history, you would see that our "proactive" foreign policy (sidenote, funny how so many "conservatives" adhere to a policy started by progressives) is the reason we have enemies. Let me ask you something. Why did we have to involve ourselves in WWI? Why was a fleet out of San Jose working in Pearl Harbor? Currently, what was the root cause for Al Qaeda's hatred towards the US? But I digress...

Whether you would like to ignore history or not, our interventionist foreign policy has put this country in more danger than the non interventionist thought of the past. And please, learn that there is a difference between an isolation and a non interventionist, main point being, non interventionist believe in open trade with foreign countries but not the intermingling of politics. So as it relates to the results of being an interventionist, I believe that our forefathers where spot on.

your arguments are all based on the totally mistaken assumption that foreign aggression is more or less nonexistent... 'if we would just stay out of the middle east then ISIS would leave us alone'...never mind that ISIS has said -flat out- that they will be coming for us as soon as they are capable... 'iran is harmless even if they do get nuclear weapons'...never mind that the iranian constitution itself commits them to bringing us all under the control of their islamist system of government...

nearly every time the united states has pursued a 'noninterventionist' foreign policy...it has led to us being caught by surprise by foreign aggression...from attacks on american merchant ships by the barbary states to having american passengers killed in the sinking of the lusitania to the terrorist attacks on 9/11...

noninterventionist foreign policy is by nature a policy of complacency...and this is far more dangerous than a proactive foreign policy even when being proactive sometimes creates resentment...it is better to be assertive and resented by the neighborhood bullies than for your passivity to make you an easy target for the bullies...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Rachel, it is desirable for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate and forgo a new Cold War which we're presently accelerating toward full steam ahead that has hot war potential. Obviously, that's not good.

You have some deep seated animosity toward Russia that causes you to desire and seek enmity between our two countries. That's your own personal problem. It's not mine and it's not desirable for either country's future.

So your personal problem aside, the Russian Federation is NOT the Soviet Union. It's not a Marxist state atheistic political construct dedicated to our destruction as the Soviet Union was and we should not be treating the Russian Federation as if it were. Nothing good has, is, or will come from doing so.

As you know, prior to entering World War II the United States gave the Soviet Union millions of dollars worth of weapons and other support for their fight against Nazi Germany and the two nations became allies in the liberation of Europe.

At war's end, unfortunately, the Soviet Union did not vacate the countries they occupied leading British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to describe this territory as being behind an Iron Curtain. The division provided the framework for the Cold War which ran from roughly 1947 to 1991. During those years, obviously, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were in a global geo-political struggle for supremacy which we thankfully won.

The end of the Cold War gave the United States and Russia new opportunities to cooperate and they began to. Russia took over the permanent seat (with full veto power) previously held by the Soviet Union at the United Nations Security Council and we began to work together for the first time since the end of WWII.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has meddled in Russia's internal affairs even to the point of trying to force the homosexual agenda upon Russia's children as is currently occurring in the U.S.. This outraged the Russian people and they have reacted in opposition. Worse, NATO invited former Soviet nations to join the alliance against the Russian Federation instead of simply engaging in trade and diplomacy with these countries and leaving them in a buffer zone between NATO and the Russian Federation. Russia viewed this for what it was: a military threat. Hence, their reaction to it.

ALL of this was avoidable and desirable to avoid. But wisdom did not rule the day and, as a result, we are currently going into dangerous waters... waters you want us to enter. Shame on you Rachel for that.

i don't desire enmity between the united states and russia...i simply recognize the reality that this enmity exists and that it exists by russia's choice...unlike in your alternative reality where we can get along with a deeply xenophobic and aggressively expansionist anti western state with a messianic complex...nothing good ever comes from that level of denial...

no the russian federation is not the soviet union...it is -worse- than the soviet union... russia's abandonment of marxism and state atheism did not result in moral revival but instead merely transformed russia from a stalinist model into the russian orthodox equivalent of the khomeinist worldview...a transformation that makes russia even -more- dangerous than before... whereas the atheistic geopolitics of the soviet union were driven by purely materialistic logic and therefore constantly limited by the calculation of 'mutually assured destruction'...the new russian nationalism has coopted a form of religious fervor that saturates russian foreign policy with presumptions of divinely bestowed invincibility and global 'manifest destiny'...no longer will russia hold back from direct military meddling in ukraine or georgia or anywhere else for fear that someone would react by blowing them up...now russia acts with absolute impunity because they think God wants them to and that God will keep anyone from blowing them up...

many people assumed the geopolitical struggle between the west and russia ended with the dissolution of the soviet union and the end of the cold war...it -didn't-...all that happened was that russia took about a decade to regroup and then renewed its geopolitical ambitions in earnest...

there is pretty much zero evidence that the united states has tried to 'force the homosexual agenda upon russia's children'...this was purely russian state propaganda designed to drive the average russian's disdain for the west to even higher levels...and also no small bit of projection from putin who was outed as a pedophile by russian FSB defector alexander litvinenko after a number of incidents of odd behavior by putin around children...

NATO was not an 'alliance against the russian federation' until russia decided to make it so...in fact NATO and russia held joint military exercises and there was even talk about russia -joining- NATO in the future... there was absolutely no cause for regarding former soviet countries' NATO membership as a military threat to the russian federation...except in the xenophobic anti western mindset of russia itself... and furthermore it is russia and not NATO that has sought to make the former soviet states more than simply buffer states...the entire ukrainian crisis for example is a direct result of russia's attempts at strongarming ukraine into its new 'customs union' by direct meddling in its politics...with the eventual goal of reducing ukraine to a client state in the planned 'eurasian union state' envisioned as a revival of russia's soviet era empire...

the current conflict was avoidable but it was initiated by russia's choice...we can either continue the delusional denial game of the past ten years of 'reset buttons' and 'looking into putin's eyes and seeing his soul'...or the united states can acknowledge the reality that you simply don't seem to be living in...and tailor our foreign policy accordingly...

 

[jahsoul]

your arguments are all based on the totally mistaken assumption that foreign aggression is more or less nonexistent... 'if we would just stay out of the middle east then ISIS would leave us alone'...never mind that ISIS has said -flat out- that they will be coming for us as soon as they are capable... 'iran is harmless even if they do get nuclear weapons'...never mind that the iranian constitution itself commits them to bringing us all under the control of their islamist system of government...

nearly every time the united states has pursued a 'noninterventionist' foreign policy...it has led to us being caught by surprise by foreign aggression...from attacks on american merchant ships by the barbary states to having american passengers killed in the sinking of the lusitania to the terrorist attacks on 9/11...

noninterventionist foreign policy is by nature a policy of complacency...and this is far more dangerous than a proactive foreign policy even when being proactive sometimes creates resentment...it is better to be assertive and resented by the neighborhood bullies than for your passivity to make you an easy target for the bullies...

First off, as it relates to 9/11, the United States had more than enough information to stop the attack. Don't confuse non interventionism with refusal to act. 9/11 was a result of a lot more than I believe hasn't been presented, but I won't dwell on that.

Again, I have to reiterate the fact that our (born from progressives) foreign policy has put this country and made more enemies for us than our non intervention. If you think that we will be bullied, then you don't have much faith in our military strength. Having served myself, I'll let you take that stand alone. Truthfully, if our president's ran any other country, they would be tried for war crimes.

But I've never been one to take the Dick Cheaney view on things. We aren't resented by the bullies; we are resented by the people. Tell me how many people die from drone strikes? Tell me why Al Qaeda grew once we got Saddam out of power? Tell me why our presence hasn't lead to stability over there? How come democracy fails everywhere we try to prop it up? (crap, we aren't even a democratic country). For your what ifs, I'm giving you the facts of this foreign policy. It hasn't made us any safer.

 

[dcontroversal]

Rand has good rhetoric, but cannot get elected as evil men a seducers will wax worse and worse....The nation has set the helm towards destruction and the embracement of baby killing and sexual immorality (especially gay activity) testifies to where we are in God's eyes....as all that remains is judgment......

 

[SonInMe]

we shoulda left hitler alone...

Hito.....

Stalin....

evil america, how evil we are.

If the world hates us...good. We are doing it right, who cares about a buncha third world countries who only abuse their own people and blame evil USA for their problems?

 

[jahsoul]

we shoulda left hitler alone...

Hito.....

Stalin....

evil america, how evil we are.

If the world hates us...good. We are doing it right, who cares about a buncha third world countries who only abuse their own people and blame evil USA for their problems?

Considering that the rise of Hitler and Stalin was an effect of WWI, maybe we should have stayed out of that war. Most countries have issues with the US, not because we are doing it right, but because we are expanding the M.I.C. into their countries. If anyone propped military installations in the US, we would take issues with that; how ignorant and naive to believe that other countries would not feel the same way. Again, why do so many "conservative" cling to a progressive policy of interventionism.