Should a liberal Democrat vote for Rand Paul? Here's one who says, "yes."

[lpetrich]

What country did Russia invade? Technically they invaded Georgia after their troops were attacked but that's a long time ago. They did not invade Crimea. They had a treaty right to maintain troops there. John Kerry lied to the American public when he said Russia invaded.

Russia invaded Ukraine. Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk are all in Ukraine.

I do not argue that Putin is some kind of humanitarian. No. He is a political boss, and also a solid Russian nationalist. But his actions do not suggest that he has territorial ambitions. He has only acted when provoked. WE are the provocateurs.

I don't find any convincing evidence of US provocation here.

 

[boneyard bill]

Rand Paul has been running around the country ever since he got elected saying that he is not opposed to military interventions overseas, so where did you ever get the idea that he was a "pacifist?" As I understand it, his declaration of war proposal is also accompanied by a repeal of the Authorization of the use of military force that was passed after 9/11 and has been used by both Bush and Obama as justification for doing pretty much whatever they want. Paul's larger point here isn't that we should go after ISIS, although he has supported that from the beginning, his point is that Congress needs to authorize it.

This misses the larger issue that one of the reasons this alleged liberal gave for considering Rand Paul is "Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush." Certainly that declaration with its implied foreign interventionism appears inconsistent with that claim.

Insisting that Congress debate the issue and vote for the action before it is undertaken certainly is more caution than either Obama or Hillary has demonstrated in their foreign policy actions thus far.

 

[laughing dog]

This misses the larger issue that one of the reasons this alleged liberal gave for considering Rand Paul is "Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush." Certainly that declaration with its implied foreign interventionism appears inconsistent with that claim.

Insisting that Congress debate the issue and vote for the action before it is undertaken certainly is more caution than either Obama or Hillary has demonstrated in their foreign policy actions thus far.

Obama is not running for re-election. Do you have any actual evidence concerning the level of caution Ms. Clinton has used in foreign policy actions? It seems to me that the obvious evidence presented in this thread rebuts that claim of that "liberal democrat".

 

[boneyard bill]

Russia invaded Ukraine. Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk are all in Ukraine.

I do not argue that Putin is some kind of humanitarian. No. He is a political boss, and also a solid Russian nationalist. But his actions do not suggest that he has territorial ambitions. He has only acted when provoked. WE are the provocateurs.

I don't find any convincing evidence of US provocation here.

As I've noted, (how many times now?) Russia did not invade Ukraine. John Kerry lied to the media and the American public on this issue. As Kerry told the Senate shortly after his "invasion" claim, Russia had a treaty right to maintain 25,000 troops in Crimea. In accordance with that treaty right, Putin sent additional troops to the Ukraine. No doubt these troops prevented Ukrainian forces from the illegitimate Kiev government from seizing Ukraine. Nonetheless. It was not an invasion. They did not exceed the treaty right.

There is no evidence of troops under Russian command in either Donetsk or Lugansk. There are Russian volunteers as there are volunteers from other areas of Europe (especially Spain), but they are all under the command of the separatist leaders.

If you don't find provocation you aren't looking. There's the annexation of almost the entire Warsaw Pact into NATO as well as the inclusion of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. There's the war against Yugoslavia, the only Russian ally left in eastern Europe and the forced separation of Kosovo from Yugoslavia and the subsequent recognition of Kosovo independence in spite of the agreement ending the Kosovo War that we would not support Kosovo independence. There are the interventions in Ukraine in 2005 that prevented Yanukovich from taking power in Ukraine despite his having won the election there. (the "Orange Revolution"). There's our support for the current coup d'état in Kiev which drove Yanukovich from power after he had been elected again in internationally supervised elections and the proclamation of this coup d'état, brought about through armed force, as a "democracy" movement. There's the placing of anti-missile bases in former Warsaw Pact countries. There's the establishment of military bases in Afghanistan and the central Asian republics further seeking to encircle Russia. Now we are preparing to re-arm the Ukrainian army after their humiliating defeat in Donetsk and NATO troops are now undertaking "training" exercises in Ukraine. I'd better stop now as I keep thinking of more incidents as I go along.

YOU may not find these provocative. I assure you that the Russians do.

 

[boneyard bill]

Insisting that Congress debate the issue and vote for the action before it is undertaken certainly is more caution than either Obama or Hillary has demonstrated in their foreign policy actions thus far.

Obama is not running for re-election. Do you have any actual evidence concerning the level of caution Ms. Clinton has used in foreign policy actions? It seems to me that the obvious evidence presented in this thread rebuts that claim of that "liberal democrat".

We are not privy to her influence on her husband's policies or Obama's when she was Secretary of State. We can only go by what she has said in public. She supported the Iraq War. She opposed getting out of Iraq during the campaign against Obama. She has not publicly opposed any interventions that I am aware of.

Rand Paul opposed the Iraq War. He supported the intervention in Afghanistan but claims that we have remained there beyond necessity. He publicly opposed Obama's plan to bomb Syria which was later abandoned due to public opposition.

 

[laughing dog]

Obama is not running for re-election. Do you have any actual evidence concerning the level of caution Ms. Clinton has used in foreign policy actions? It seems to me that the obvious evidence presented in this thread rebuts that claim of that "liberal democrat".

We are not privy to her influence on her husband's policies or Obama's when she was Secretary of State. We can only go by what she has said in public. She supported the Iraq War. She opposed getting out of Iraq during the campaign against Obama. She has not publicly opposed any interventions that I am aware of.

Rand Paul opposed the Iraq War. He supported the intervention in Afghanistan but claims that we have remained there beyond necessity. He publicly opposed Obama's plan to bomb Syria which was later abandoned due to public opposition.

And he supports declaring war on ISIL. Compared to Ms. Clinton, I don't see much difference in "caution".

 

[boneyard bill]

We are not privy to her influence on her husband's policies or Obama's when she was Secretary of State. We can only go by what she has said in public. She supported the Iraq War. She opposed getting out of Iraq during the campaign against Obama. She has not publicly opposed any interventions that I am aware of.

Rand Paul opposed the Iraq War. He supported the intervention in Afghanistan but claims that we have remained there beyond necessity. He publicly opposed Obama's plan to bomb Syria which was later abandoned due to public opposition.

And he supports declaring war on ISIL. Compared to Ms. Clinton, I don't see much difference in "caution".

He proposes to ask Congress to declare war on ISIL. He also proposes to repeal the AUMF which would dispossess the presidency of authorization to act entirely on his own authority in the Middle East. I also think that not entering the Iraq War would have been a more cautious approach than the decision of George Bush which Hillary supported. And I think withdrawal from Afghanistan is a far more cautious move than remaining there with no clear objective or eventual exist strategy in mind. What on earth would you regard as caution if you can't see the differences here?

 

[Jayjay]

Russia invaded Ukraine. Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk are all in Ukraine.

I don't find any convincing evidence of US provocation here.

As I've noted, (how many times now?) Russia did not invade Ukraine. John Kerry lied to the media and the American public on this issue. As Kerry told the Senate shortly after his "invasion" claim, Russia had a treaty right to maintain 25,000 troops in Crimea. In accordance with that treaty right, Putin sent additional troops to the Ukraine. No doubt these troops prevented Ukrainian forces from the illegitimate Kiev government from seizing Ukraine. Nonetheless. It was not an invasion. They did not exceed the treaty right.

There was no treaty that would give Russian troops the right to occupy government buildings and airports. Just because the troops came from bases that were already stationed in Crimea, doesn't make it any less of an invasion.

There is no evidence of troops under Russian command in either Donetsk or Lugansk. There are Russian volunteers as there are volunteers from other areas of Europe (especially Spain), but they are all under the command of the separatist leaders.

Many of the volunteers were active duty military, and as such under Russian command. And you'd have to be incredibly naive to think that the separatists leaders aren't taking their marching order directly from Moscow.

YOU may not find these provocative. I assure you that the Russians do.

If Russia is paranoid, that's their problem. And Russia has meddled far more in internal Ukrainian affairs than any other country.

 

[Ford]

Rand Paul opposed the Iraq War. He supported the intervention in Afghanistan but claims that we have remained there beyond necessity. He publicly opposed Obama's plan to bomb Syria which was later abandoned due to public opposition.

None of this makes him a liberal, nor should it make up for the fact that none of his other policy positions are even remotely liberal.

 

[boneyard bill]

As I've noted, (how many times now?) Russia did not invade Ukraine. John Kerry lied to the media and the American public on this issue. As Kerry told the Senate shortly after his "invasion" claim, Russia had a treaty right to maintain 25,000 troops in Crimea. In accordance with that treaty right, Putin sent additional troops to the Ukraine. No doubt these troops prevented Ukrainian forces from the illegitimate Kiev government from seizing Ukraine. Nonetheless. It was not an invasion. They did not exceed the treaty right.

There was no treaty that would give Russian troops the right to occupy government buildings and airports. Just because the troops came from bases that were already stationed in Crimea, doesn't make it any less of an invasion.

There is no evidence of troops under Russian command in either Donetsk or Lugansk. There are Russian volunteers as there are volunteers from other areas of Europe (especially Spain), but they are all under the command of the separatist leaders.

Many of the volunteers were active duty military, and as such under Russian command. And you'd have to be incredibly naive to think that the separatists leaders aren't taking their marching order directly from Moscow.

YOU may not find these provocative. I assure you that the Russians do.

If Russia is paranoid, that's their problem. And Russia has meddled far more in internal Ukrainian affairs than any other country.

Point one is simply untrue. To claim that such action is an invasion is both inaccurate and misleading. Kerry did NOT use the term invasion in his Senate testimony. He only used it when talking to the media.

Point two is also untrue. Some Russian soldiers went to Ukraine while on leave. That still does not put them under Russian command. There were no Russian commanders in Ukraine. Words simply do not mean anything you want them to mean. It is likely that Donetsk commanders were dependent on Russia for some logistical support. Generous as the Ukrainian troops were in leaving their equipment and supplies behind when they were attacked by the separatists, they probably didn't provide enough to supply them completely. That doesn't mean they are completely under the control of Moscow.

Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. US threats are very real, and Putin certainly isn't going to wait to find out if we would act against him in view of our treatment of our erstwhile ally Saddan Hussein or Muamar Qaddaffi who discovered how dangerous it can be to make peace with the United States.

What evidence do you have of Russian meddling AT ALL in Ukrainian internal affairs prior to the Western coup in Kiev?

 

[Ford]

What evidence do you have of Russian meddling AT ALL in Ukrainian internal affairs prior to the Western coup in Kiev?

If you're gonna use the words "Western coup in Kiev," then it is incumbent upon you to establish that such a thing actually happened.

There's a few Putin fanboys here who continually assert that "the West" (as if everything west of Moscow is one giant conspiracy) was behind the "coup" in Ukraine, but assertion does not equal evidence.


Also, even if you were to establish that what happened in Kiev was a "coup" and was undertaken by "the West," it would do exactly zero to establish Rand Paul as a liberal, or someone liberals should vote for.


You are of course free to start disabusing me of these notions at any moment.

 

[boneyard bill]

Rand Paul opposed the Iraq War. He supported the intervention in Afghanistan but claims that we have remained there beyond necessity. He publicly opposed Obama's plan to bomb Syria which was later abandoned due to public opposition.

None of this makes him a liberal, nor should it make up for the fact that none of his other policy positions are even remotely liberal.

When did I ever claim that Rand Paul was a liberal? I said, citing a source in the OP, that Rand Paul could appeal to liberals on some issues where he was more acceptable to liberals than Hillary Clinton. Foreign policy is the foremost of these and the one most cited by the source. He perceives Hillary as aligned with the warmongers, and her public statements support that view.

But Rand is also more liberal than Hillary on civil liberties. She voted for the Patriot Act and has not spoken out against NDAA or NSA or any of the other infringements on civil liberties while Rand has opposed nearly all of them.

But Rand has gone beyond that to support more broadly defined civil liberties in proposing sentencing reform for non-violent offenders and promoting voting rights for non-violent felons.

Rand has also spoken out against crony capitalism which few elected liberals have endorsed. Weird. They complain about tax cuts for business and then vote for all kinds of corporate and special interest subsidies. Hillary Clinton is in that mold as well.

If the choice were between Rand Paul and someone who consistently supported the liberal agenda, then a good liberal would have no difficulty making a choice. But Hillary Clinton has never consistently supported the liberal agenda and has often consistently opposed it. This is no more obvious than in the area of foreign policy and civil liberties. If you support peace and due process of law the choice of Rand Paul is a no-brainer. If those are low on your liberal priority list then maybe you'll get sucked in to voting for Hillary.

 

[boneyard bill]

What evidence do you have of Russian meddling AT ALL in Ukrainian internal affairs prior to the Western coup in Kiev?

If you're gonna use the words "Western coup in Kiev," then it is incumbent upon you to establish that such a thing actually happened.

There's a few Putin fanboys here who continually assert that "the West" (as if everything west of Moscow is one giant conspiracy) was behind the "coup" in Ukraine, but assertion does not equal evidence.


Also, even if you were to establish that what happened in Kiev was a "coup" and was undertaken by "the West," it would do exactly zero to establish Rand Paul as a liberal, or someone liberals should vote for.


You are of course free to start disabusing me of these notions at any moment.

I have made the case numerous times in previous threads and it is currently being discussed even now on these boards. I got sucked into a derail by JayJay. I'm not going to make the case yet again here because that is not the topic of this thread. Rand Paul's statements on the Ukraine subject have been ambiguous. He warned against "tweaking" Russia too much, but has supported sanctions.

I'm disappointed in Rand's position here, but his position is probably politically clever. It is extremely dangerous in political debate to challenge the mainstream media narrative so Rand is walking on tip-toes through this issue.

 

[Ford]

When did I ever claim that Rand Paul was a liberal?

You claim he is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, who is aside from the current President perhaps the most prominent Democrat in America.

That's a stretch, to say the least.


With regards to foreign policy, I'd remind you (again) that being liberal does not equal being isolationist.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt was far more liberal than perhaps any American politician living today, yet he led the country to war in Europe and Asia.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were liberal enough that they'd be to the left of Bernie Sanders on more than a few issues, but they were also "hawks" on national security.


You've got it into your head that the only thing liberals care about is when and where to take the country to war, and that by that standard liberals should be lining up behind Rand Paul should the 2016 contest come down to him and Hillary.


That is absurd.


You also brought up civil liberties. Rand Paul thinks that the proper role of government is to police what goes on in the womb of a woman. Should that womb find itself possessed of a fetus, Rand Paul believes the womb no longer belongs to the woman, and that the state should compel her to carry that collection of cells to term.


The Patriot Act is intrusive, but not THAT much.

But Hillary Clinton has never consistently supported the liberal agenda and has often consistently opposed it.

Rand Paul has never supported any part of the liberal agenda, and has always opposed it. The man stands in staunch opposition to everything even remotely liberal. Claiming he's a better choice for a liberal voter than Hillary is like saying a die hard Ohio State fan is qualified to run the University of Michigan because he once happened to wear blue.

 

[boneyard bill]

Ford writes:

You claim he is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, who is aside from the current President perhaps the most prominent Democrat in America.

That's a stretch, to say the least.

You go from one mis-statement to the next. I said that Rand was more liberal than Hillary Clinton on some issues. Those issues are basically foreign policy, civil liberties, and crony capitalism.

With regards to foreign policy, I'd remind you (again) that being liberal does not equal being isolationist.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was far more liberal than perhaps any American politician living today, yet he led the country to war in Europe and Asia.

Rand Paul is not an isolationist. Now you're sounding like John McCain or Lindsay Graham or worse yet, Pete King. Rand Paul does believe that bombing seven countries during your term of office (many of them while Hillary was Secretary of State) is a bit excessive. What president has even come close to that except in a major war like WW II? But he has supported sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, and he favors going to war over ISIS. That's hardly isolationism.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were liberal enough that they'd be to the left of Bernie Sanders on more than a few issues, but they were also "hawks" on national security.

Arnold Toynbee you are not. I suggest you check your history a little more thoroughly. Kennedy sponsored one of the largest tax cuts in US history. On percentage terms it was on a par with the Reagan cuts of the early 1980's. He dropped the top tax bracket from 91% to 70%. The corporate rate went from 52% to 48%. He also instituted the investment tax credit. He also wire-tapped more than any other president in our history and that record may have held up until the rise of the NSA and internet spying. He tapped way more than his successors Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. He increased defense spending significantly but did little to boost domestic spending. He sought to prevent the civil rights movement from gaining traction until his second term but was forced to act by MLK and the protestors. It wasn't until his third year in office that he introduced civil rights legislation despite his campaign promise to do so.

LBJ was even more hawkish than Kennedy but also a bit more liberal on domestic issues. Medicare and Medicaid were his biggest achievements there, and they were budget busters that we still haven't come to grips with. His war on poverty was a complete bust. I guess you could say that it was at least liberal in its intent. But that's about as far as it goes.

I should point out though, that Bernie Sanders votes to spend less money than the average Republican. So it's not clear what's so liberal about him except on foreign policy and civil liberties. Of course, he also probably votes against a lot of defense programs, but Rand Paul wants to cut defense spending also.

You've got it into your head that the only thing liberals care about is when and where to take the country to war, and that by that standard liberals should be lining up behind Rand Paul should the 2016 contest come down to him and Hillary.

No. Again, you've mis-stated my claim. I didn't claim that ALL liberals only care about staying out of war. I said that those liberals who give that a high priority in their liberalism should consider voting for Rand over Hillary.

That is absurd.

You also brought up civil liberties. Rand Paul thinks that the proper role of government is to police what goes on in the womb of a woman. Should that womb find itself possessed of a fetus, Rand Paul believes the womb no longer belongs to the woman, and that the state should compel her to carry that collection of cells to term.

That's correct. He favors civil liberties for those who have not yet been born. It's the most important civil liberty of them all - life. Fortunately for you, your mother also felt that way.

The Patriot Act is intrusive, but not THAT much.

Here are some of the provisions:

Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Patriot_Act?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

So Hillary voted for the law that has been found to be unconstitutional in some provisions that have been contested in court. Frankly, if you think those provisions are not intrusive, I don't know how you define the term.

But I didn't stop there. She never criticized the Military Commissions act. She probably voted for it, but I can't say that for sure. She has also been silent about the NDAA which allows indefinite detention of ALL Americans, not just immigrants, without trial. That means, essentially, you have no civil liberties at all. The government can lock you up and throw the keys away. Do you think THAT is not intrusive?

But Hillary Clinton has never consistently supported the liberal agenda and has often consistently opposed it.

Rand Paul has never supported any part of the liberal agenda, and has always opposed it. The man stands in staunch opposition to everything even remotely liberal. Claiming he's a better choice for a liberal voter than Hillary is like saying a die hard Ohio State fan is qualified to run the University of Michigan because he once happened to wear blue.

If you call yourself a liberal, I must say that you are very different from the liberals I have known in the past. Of course, I'm a child of the sixties when liberty was still considered important. Liberalism derives from the word "liberty" and originally referred to people who favored limited government of all sorts. In the 20th Century it came to mean those who favored big government for idealistic purposes while still opposing it for intrusive personal matters and empire building. But apparently even that is lost and there really isn't anything of liberalism but the name.

 

[Ford]

Of course, I'm a child of the sixties when liberty was still considered important.

Yeah, I was born in the sixties, too. You still haven't made the case that Rand Paul's policies are appealing to liberals.

 

[laughing dog]

And he supports declaring war on ISIL. Compared to Ms. Clinton, I don't see much difference in "caution".

He proposes to ask Congress to declare war on ISIL. He also proposes to repeal the AUMF which would dispossess the presidency of authorization to act entirely on his own authority in the Middle East. I also think that not entering the Iraq War would have been a more cautious approach than the decision of George Bush which Hillary supported. And I think withdrawal from Afghanistan is a far more cautious move than remaining there with no clear objective or eventual exist strategy in mind. What on earth would you regard as caution if you can't see the differences here?

We are in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan. So there really isn't much difference between Sen. Paul and others here except about Iraq.

 

[boneyard bill]

Of course, I'm a child of the sixties when liberty was still considered important.

Yeah, I was born in the sixties, too. You still haven't made the case that Rand Paul's policies are appealing to liberals.

I wasn't born in the sixties. I went to college in the sixties. That is what I mean by being a child of the sixties. I was old enough to know what was going on. The New Left of the sixties were definitely in favor of individual liberty and were activist about it. Sure they weren't Ayn Rand devotees, although there were plenty of them around, but they did start the "free speech" movement and especially sought greater freedom of expression on the campuses. Today, apathy seems to reign supreme.

- - - Updated - - -

He proposes to ask Congress to declare war on ISIL. He also proposes to repeal the AUMF which would dispossess the presidency of authorization to act entirely on his own authority in the Middle East. I also think that not entering the Iraq War would have been a more cautious approach than the decision of George Bush which Hillary supported. And I think withdrawal from Afghanistan is a far more cautious move than remaining there with no clear objective or eventual exist strategy in mind. What on earth would you regard as caution if you can't see the differences here?

We are in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan. So there really isn't much difference between Sen. Paul and others here except about Iraq.

No. Obama said he was going to get out in 2014, but now he says he's going to keep 10,000 troops there.

 

[Ford]

I wasn't born in the sixties. I went to college in the sixties. That is what I mean by being a child of the sixties.

Congratulations.


Now, can you please explain why Rand Paul's pro-life, anti-Civil Rights Act and anti-social safety net positions are appealing to liberals?


The man seems to be against just about almost everything that the children of the sixties stood for. Women's rights? Not a Rand Paul platform. Minority rights? He's said he thinks businesses should be free to hang a "no coloreds" sign on the front door. Sexual revolution? Sorry, Rand Paul thinks women are baby factories.

 

[boneyard bill]

I wasn't born in the sixties. I went to college in the sixties. That is what I mean by being a child of the sixties.

Congratulations.


Now, can you please explain why Rand Paul's pro-life, anti-Civil Rights Act and anti-social safety net positions are appealing to liberals?


The man seems to be against just about almost everything that the children of the sixties stood for. Women's rights? Not a Rand Paul platform. Minority rights? He's said he thinks businesses should be free to hang a "no coloreds" sign on the front door. Sexual revolution? Sorry, Rand Paul thinks women are baby factories.

Rand Paul would probably have been quite popular in the sixties. Women's rights didn't start until later and was more of an upper class movement. Rand Paul did not oppose the Civil Rights Act. His call for sentencing reform of marijuana laws would have been hugely popular among the flower children and among blacks and would have been seen as a scandalous proposal on the right. So would his proposal to allow felons to vote.