It is getting increasingly difficult for me to take Rand Paul seriously as a presidential candidate. He is trying so hard to appeal to Democrats that he is running the risk of losing people like me.

 

Sen. Rand Paul calls Hillary Clinton a 'war hawk'

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Calling Hillary Rodham Clinton "a war hawk," Sen. Rand Paul says that if the former secretary of state seeks the presidency, some voters will worry that she will get the U.S. involved in another Mideast war.

Paul is a leading anti-interventionist in the GOP and is considering running for president. Last year he opposed President Barack Obama's call for military action in Syria.

In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Paul predicted a "transformational election" if the Democrats nominate "a war hawk like Hillary Clinton."

"I think that's what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there's gonna be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, `You know what? We are tired of war,'" Paul said. "We're worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she's so gung-ho."

Actually he is holding his father's line. Ron was a leading anti-interventionist when in the house.

 

I tend to agree with him. We are not the world's police.

Actually he is holding his father's line. Ron was a leading anti-interventionist when in the house.

 

I tend to agree with him. We are not the world's police.

I agree that we should not be the world's policeman, but we should also not be too shy about acting in our own national interests and to save American lives. ISIS (or ISIL or IS) is already bigger, better equipped, and better financed that al Qaeda was before the 9/11 attacks and they are already threatening attacks on American soil.

 

Radical Islamists do not respect pacifists. We do not currently have a credible threat of force to deter terrorist attacks and with Rand Paul in the White House, that will not change if his actions match his campaign rhetoric.

 

This country has not had a president who understood how to achieve goals through diplomacy since Ronald Reagan. Diplomacy is worthless unless it is backed up a credible threat of military force and a credible threat does not require American military forces to engage in large scale wars on a regular basis.

 

I would never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton for any public office, but I hope that Republicans will nominate a better alternative to Clinton than Rand Paul.

I agree that we should not be the world's policeman, but we should also not be too shy about acting in our own national interests and to save American lives. ISIS (or ISIL or IS) is already bigger, better equipped, and better financed that al Qaeda was before the 9/11 attacks and they are already threatening attacks on American soil.

 

Radical Islamists do not respect pacifists. We do not currently have a credible threat of force to deter terrorist attacks and with Rand Paul in the White House, that will not change if his actions match his campaign rhetoric.

 

This country has not had a president who understood how to achieve goals through diplomacy since Ronald Reagan. Diplomacy is worthless unless it is backed up a credible threat of military force and a credible threat does not require American military forces to engage in large scale wars on a regular basis.

 

I would never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton for any public office, but I hope that Republicans will nominate a better alternative to Clinton than Rand Paul.

 

A non-interventionist stance does not equal pacifism. Anybody invaded Switzerland lately?

Is there an option between non-interventionist and getting involved in every skirmish that occurs on the globe? Whenever I hear a sporting event welcome to Armed Forces Radio broadcasting to our servicemen and women serving in 130 countries, I think no wonder the national debt is 17 trillion dollars. If Hillary runs I will vote for her but think a much more non-imperialistic approach to the world is in America’s best interest. As for ISIS, eradicate them with prejudice by any means necessary.

Is there an option between non-interventionist and getting involved in every skirmish that occurs on the globe? Whenever I hear a sporting event welcome to Armed Forces Radio broadcasting to our servicemen and women serving in 130 countries, I think no wonder the national debt is 17 trillion dollars. If Hillary runs I will vote for her but think a much more non-imperialistic approach to the world is in America’s best interest. As for ISIS, eradicate them with prejudice by any means necessary.

 

Not in Mitch's world. Only the blackest of black and whitest of white, with no gray area to be found.

 

I say we divest from everywhere in the ME, and use the threat of the G-Bomb to enforce our non-interventionism. Focus those resources on shoring up our borders and intelligence operations.

I

 

 

 

This country has not had a president who understood how to achieve goals through diplomacy since Ronald Reagan. Diplomacy is worthless unless it is backed up a credible threat of military force and a credible threat does not require American military forces to engage in large scale wars on a regular basis.

 

I would never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton for any public office, but I hope that Republicans will nominate a better alternative to Clinton than Rand Paul.

 

Will there be one or two issues that puts the Republican candidate in the White House? OR will it more of the intangibles?

I agree that we should not be the world's policeman, but we should also not be too shy about acting in our own national interests and to save American lives. ISIS (or ISIL or IS) is already bigger, better equipped, and better financed that al Qaeda was before the 9/11 attacks and they are already threatening attacks on American soil.

 

Radical Islamists do not respect pacifists. We do not currently have a credible threat of force to deter terrorist attacks and with Rand Paul in the White House, that will not change if his actions match his campaign rhetoric.

 

This country has not had a president who understood how to achieve goals through diplomacy since Ronald Reagan. Diplomacy is worthless unless it is backed up a credible threat of military force and a credible threat does not require American military forces to engage in large scale wars on a regular basis.

 

I would never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton for any public office, but I hope that Republicans will nominate a better alternative to Clinton than Rand Paul.

 

Where/when has Rand Paul been a pacifist? If he were president, ISIS would most likely never have the weapons and equipment they are using.

I agree that we should not be the world's policeman, but we should also not be too shy about acting in our own national interests and to save American lives. ISIS (or ISIL or IS) is already bigger, better equipped, and better financed that al Qaeda was before the 9/11 attacks and they are already threatening attacks on American soil.

 

Radical Islamists do not respect pacifists. We do not currently have a credible threat of force to deter terrorist attacks and with Rand Paul in the White House, that will not change if his actions match his campaign rhetoric.

 

This country has not had a president who understood how to achieve goals through diplomacy since Ronald Reagan. Diplomacy is worthless unless it is backed up a credible threat of military force and a credible threat does not require American military forces to engage in large scale wars on a regular basis.

 

I would never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton for any public office, but I hope that Republicans will nominate a better alternative to Clinton than Rand Paul.

 

So you were or are against McConnell because he wasn't conservative enough . Then you have Rand Paul who is one of the best examples of a Fiscal conservative in Washington and you are not for him. He is also gaining momentum on both sides of the aisle. Who exactly will you vote for ?

A non-interventionist stance does not equal pacifism. Anybody invaded Switzerland lately?

Do you also favor compulsory military service and gun ownership, small government, and an extremely low corporate tax rate, all of which Switzerland has?

 

How has a non-interventionist stance worked for Tibet? Or for the U.S. prior to its involvement in World War I and II?

 

Non-interventionism has worked out for Switzerland but simply shrinking the size and capability of our military will not transform the U.S. into a large scale version of Switzerland. Those who believe it will are just engaging in wishful thinking.

Is there an option between non-interventionist and getting involved in every skirmish that occurs on the globe? Whenever I hear a sporting event welcome to Armed Forces Radio broadcasting to our servicemen and women serving in 130 countries, I think no wonder the national debt is 17 trillion dollars. If Hillary runs I will vote for her but think a much more non-imperialistic approach to the world is in America’s best interest. As for ISIS, eradicate them with prejudice by any means necessary.

So without vetting any candidate through the election process you think she is the single best person to run this country?

Is there an option between non-interventionist and getting involved in every skirmish that occurs on the globe? Whenever I hear a sporting event welcome to Armed Forces Radio broadcasting to our servicemen and women serving in 130 countries, I think no wonder the national debt is 17 trillion dollars. If Hillary runs I will vote for her but think a much more non-imperialistic approach to the world is in America’s best interest. As for ISIS, eradicate them with prejudice by any means necessary.

I believe that there is. As I mentioned, I believe that Reagan's tenure shows that the U.S. can be feared and respected by our enemies without getting involved in a series of "hot" wars.

 

Reagan did not spend time drawing and redrawing red lines that as enemies kept crossing them, nor did he waste time condemning the actions of sovereign countries around the world in "the strongest terms possible," while threatening military action that never came. He also did not make empty promises to countries and then reneging when the rubber hit the road, as it did in Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine. This country should not make commitments that it has no intention of keeping.

Not in Mitch's world. Only the blackest of black and whitest of white, with no gray area to be found.

 

I say we divest from everywhere in the ME, and use the threat of the G-Bomb to enforce our non-interventionism. Focus those resources on shoring up our borders and intelligence operations.

Mitch can articulate his own positions without your help, Jim. Thank you very much.

What is a "G-Bomb"?

 

Is this what he is talking about...https://www.drfuhrman.com/library/gbombs.aspx

Will there be one or two issues that puts the Republican candidate in the White House? OR will it more of the intangibles?

I think that world events will play a large role in determining who wins the nomination, so I think it would be fair to say that intangibles will decide the primaries. If China and Russia decide not to continue kicking sand in the face of our military, as they have been doing recently, that will certainly favor a candidate like Rand Paul.

 

A major terrorist event on American soil between now and November 2016 would be disastrous for Rand Paul's hopes of becoming president, IMO, and it would virtually sew up the nomination of Hillary Clinton by destroying any potential challengers from her left. There are also many foreign policy developments that would undermine Rand Paul's campaign, such as a crisis with China over Taiwan or Japan, or a Russian incursion into the Baltic countries or a threat to Poland.

 

Illegal immigration and how the Republican Party addresses the issue over the next two years will be another big factor in how the primaries go. If Paul does not distance himself from the pro-amnesty GOP puppets of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, then he faces a tough road ahead.

 

For Rand Paul to win the GOP nomination, I believe that Obama's foreign policy blunders have to come to an end - which I don't expect to happen, and the economy needs to continue to limp along or get even worse - which I expect will happen. Rand has a great economic platform and a Pollyanna foreign policy.

 

Rand Paul cannot win the nomination supporting policies that are identical to those of his father, unless all of the planets are aligned just right for him in 2016.