• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul announces presidential run

MMC said:
I agree J5. :2wave: Moreover we know in some Elections.....libertarians and or Tea partiers were the cause of a loss. That shouldn't have taken place. Or one that prevented the Republicans from gaining control of a Senate.
Click to expand...

I disagree. **** the Republicans. They need to lose in order to wake up. And so do democrats.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Senator Rubio is affiliated with the neoconservative school.

National Review
Click to expand...

straw man.

the neocons spent time, treasure, and talent to keep him out of office.

I mention Rubio as an example of the waning influence of the neocon wing, not as a non-neocon
 
Just about every GOP candidate is for increasing defense spending even Rand Paul.

Potential Republican presidential candidates in 2016 have all endorsed a more robust defense budget in recent days in a hawkish turn for the party, but differences still linger on how to address some world crises.

Prospective candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Gov. Bobby Jindal (R., La.) spoke at a Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) forum on Wednesday, while Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) discussed national security issues at a Wall Street Journal CEO Council’s meeting on Tuesday. All three backed increases in defense spending amid steep budget cuts, effectively endorsing the GOP’s role as the party of national defense. Some members had flirted with targeting the Pentagon to trim budget deficits after election victories in 2010.

Cruz said the defense cuts known as sequestration are “having a serious, deleterious effect on our ability to defend our nation,” though he noted that the Pentagon’s budget is “not immune from congressional pork.” Even Paul, who had previously expressed a desire to reduce defense spending and has generally advocated for a more noninterventionist foreign policy, said he would support a larger defense budget if cuts could be found elsewhere.
Click to expand...

2016 GOP Hopefuls Call For Boost in Defense Spending | Washington Free Beacon
 
GOPs will continue to remind us of 'Teflon Don' Rand Paul and his past statements.
The battle isn't between DEMs and GOPs, it's between AANs and TEAs--as we see on the airwaves right now.
Which of course is why the House is impotent, incompetent, and immobile.

As for your party, I could vote for Kasich, Paul and Bush against HRC with these odds--50/50 Kasich--33/67 Paul--25/75 Bush.

Do you support bombing Iran for which Cotton has openly called?

And what do you think of the Green Papers ?

Sherman123 said:
I'm a unashamed neoconservative who supports the establishment wing of the party. I'm pleased that people are deluded enough to actually think that Rand will sweep up minorities and win himself the primary. This sort of mentality will make the fall that much harsher when he comes up short. I can only hope it will finally disabuse people of the notion that you can hold such heterodox views and have such a checkered past and still be a serious candidate.
Click to expand...
 
The pendulum swings. A libertarian president sounds pretty good right now.
 
ARealConservative said:
straw man.

the neocons spent time, treasure, and talent to keep him out of office.

I mention Rubio as an example of the waning influence of the neocon wing, not as a non-neocon
Click to expand...

A fact is not a strawman. Some leading neoconservative thinkers worked with him even as he pursued his Senate campaign. The article notes:

Elliott Abrams first spoke with Rubio when he was running for the Senate in 2010. “We had a mutual friend who said to me, ‘He has no experience in the Middle East, but obviously it’s a big issue in Florida, would you be willing to talk to him?’” Abrams says. “We got on the phone, and he said, ‘Let’s do it this way: Let me tell you what I think about the Middle East, and then you tell me what I’ve left out that’s important and what I’ve got wrong.’” Rubio, Abrams says, didn’t have anything wrong. “I was really impressed,” he tells me. “I don’t think there are very many state politicians who could have, off the cuff, done a six-or-seven minute riff on the Middle East.”

And during his 2010 Senate Campaign, Rubio had the support of former Governor Jeb Bush, so even the establishment wasn't fully on Crist's side.

National Review

If Senator Rubio wins the Presidency, he will pursue a neoconservative foreign policy approach, barring a radical shift in his thinking. Those expecting otherwise will be both surprised and dismayed.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If Senator Rubio wins the Presidency, he will pursue a neoconservative foreign policy approach, barring a radical shift in his thinking. Those expecting otherwise will be both surprised and dismayed.
Click to expand...

Provided that he will be observing systemic limitations placed on such views, yes, his outlook would be much more aligned with it than not. He wouldn't be Michael Ledeen by any stretch of the imagination, because he will be restricted by public opinion, the need for coalition building, fiscal restraints, and so forth. However, he will be that group's best champion for that type of foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
Rubio, Paul, and Cruz are all republicans that the neocons fought tooth and nail to not get elected. they are all possible presidential candidates. I have seen how this movie ends, and it does not end well for you.

but hey, you can always go back to the democratic wing from where you came.
Click to expand...

When did 'neoconservatives' fight Rubio? His foreign policy platform is one of the things I like about him. As far as I remember Paul is the only one who excited serious reservations. Furthermore, no one ever said that the odd candidate here and there wouldn't be able to win an election. Hell, Ron Paul was in office going back to the 80's. The point is that the majority, the levers of power, and the donor base are beyond the grasp of this fringe. As for being a Democrat, do you really think that? If you do it's emblematic of why the fire and brimstone 'conservatives' wont ever have true national success.
 
ARealConservative said:
straw man.

the neocons spent time, treasure, and talent to keep him out of office.

I mention Rubio as an example of the waning influence of the neocon wing, not as a non-neocon
Click to expand...

The NeoCons/Elites continue to dominate the GOP, as we saw with the 2014 GOP primary season.

Rubio has been pumped by NeoCon FOX for several months--especially Krauthammer--as you'll see this coming Monday when he announces .
 
jonny5 said:
I disagree. **** the Republicans. They need to lose in order to wake up. And so do democrats.
Click to expand...


Say what.....the only ones that need to lose is the Democratic Party, and Right now they have never been this weak since the Civil War. Time to help them divide up. That game they know so well.
 
ARealConservative said:
Rubio, Paul, and Cruz are all republicans that the neocons fought tooth and nail to not get elected.
they are all possible presidential candidates. I have seen how this movie ends, and it does not end well for you.
Click to expand...

Yes, they all ran against establishment candidates in the primary.
And yes, they have all tacked to the NeoCon in their own ways.

McConnell didn't mind Paul's help to get reelected .
 
Fiddytree said:
If he was being promoted and supported by neoconservatives, which he was, you have no point.
Click to expand...

Crist was preferred by the national party apparatus...until he lost to Rubio.

Rubio got support from Demint, but he fought an uphill money campaign because the neocons were not going to bankroll his efforts. but the tea party did.

necons are always trying to rewrite history.

this book is very good

https://books.google.com/books?id=C...age&q=campaign funding crist vs rubio&f=false
 
Sherman123 said:
When did 'neoconservatives' fight Rubio? His foreign policy platform is one of the things I like about him. As far as I remember Paul is the only one who excited serious reservations. Furthermore, no one ever said that the odd candidate here and there wouldn't be able to win an election. Hell, Ron Paul was in office going back to the 80's. The point is that the majority, the levers of power, and the donor base are beyond the grasp of this fringe. As for being a Democrat, do you really think that? If you do it's emblematic of why the fire and brimstone 'conservatives' wont ever have true national success.
Click to expand...

in 2009. they bankrolled Charlie Crist. They flat out said Rubio was too extreme.
 
ARealConservative said:
a fact that does not pertain to the argument is a strawman
Click to expand...

It does. The narrative of neoconservative opposition simply isn't accurate.

Senator Rubio affiliates with the neoconservative school. He spoke with prominent neoconservative thinkers during his 2010 run. He even had the endorsement of Vice President Cheney.
Cheney backs Rubio - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

And as a separate matter, the Vice President was prescient in suggesting that Governor Crist couldn’t be “trusted to remain a Republican."
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
a fact that does not pertain to the argument is a strawman
Click to expand...



That is incorrect and you are the only one saying it is not relevant...perhaps because you have no argument.

A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Typical misconception of the uninformed
 
I thought he handled this question very well. About time candidates started pushing **** back in the faces of the democrat media shills.
 
Fearandloathing said:
That is incorrect and you are the only one saying it is not relevant...perhaps because you have no argument.
Click to expand...

yes, a false representation of my argument.

I did not argue that Rubio is a neocon. I argued that in 2009, neocons fought to keep him out of office.

PWNED


YOU LOSE

me and my argument said:
Rubio, Paul, and Cruz are all republicans that the neocons fought tooth and nail to not get elected.
Click to expand...
 
MMC said:
Don't be sad, its you who has the constraint that cannot figure out how force works.
Click to expand...

I have covered politics since I was 19, that's 47 years.

And we always referred to the losing incumbent as "forced out of office"

Propositions force government to do what they they say.

I think we are seeing deperation of argument as the battle has been lost, to save face we need argue the gritty details.,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom