• 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: John Bolton is 'totally unfit' for secretary of state

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dittohead not! said:
RAND PAUL: John Bolton is 'totally unfit' for secretary of state, and Rudy Giuliani is 'very similar'

Why? Because they're cheerleaders for the war in Iraq and for regime change in the Middle East, according to Rand, which makes them on the opposite side of some important issues as compared to Trump's stated positions during the campaign.

Would Donald Trump really select people who oppose his views? What do you think?
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Bolton wrote an op-ed about how he agreed with Trump's views

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/what-trumps-foreign-policy-gets-right-1471818609
 
Dittohead not! said:
RAND PAUL: John Bolton is 'totally unfit' for secretary of state, and Rudy Giuliani is 'very similar'

Why? Because they're cheerleaders for the war in Iraq and for regime change in the Middle East, according to Rand, which makes them on the opposite side of some important issues as compared to Trump's stated positions during the campaign.

Would Donald Trump really select people who oppose his views? What do you think?
Click to expand...

Donald Trump has no problem with people who oppose his views. He does return insult for insult which fact is used to accuse him of being thin skinned, but he and Pence, for instance, don't share the same opinion on everything and I doubt he sees 100% eye to eye with anybody he is considering to put on his post inaugeration team.

If John Bolton and he share the same goals, I'm sure Trump sees the potential, expertise, and experience in Bolton that would qualify him for the job. Trump deals with the here and now and the goals and objectives that need to be addressed now rather than focus on 10 - 20 or more years ago. I'm pretty sure that a number of folks who supported the Iraq war and the removal of Saddam Hussein will be on the team so long as they now share Trump's goals of not making matters worse in the Middle East and minding our own business unless it is absolutely necessary that we intervene.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Donald Trump has no problem with people who oppose his views. He does return insult for insult which fact is used to accuse him of being thin skinned, but he and Pence, for instance, don't share the same opinion on everything and I doubt he sees 100% eye to eye with anybody he is considering to put on his post inaugeration team.

If John Bolton and he share the same goals, I'm sure Trump sees the potential, expertise, and experience in Bolton that would qualify him for the job. Trump deals with the here and now and the goals and objectives that need to be addressed now rather than focus on 10 - 20 or more years ago. I'm pretty sure that a number of folks who supported the Iraq war and the removal of Saddam Hussein will be on the team so long as they now share Trump's goals of not making matters worse in the Middle East and minding our own business unless it is absolutely necessary that we intervene.
Click to expand...

Do Bolton and Guiliani actually share those beliefs?
 
My brain substituted in Michael Bolton and I was utterly confused as to why anyone would be considering that no-talent assclown in the first place.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If they are put into positions where their views matter on that, I'm sure they would share those beliefs.
Click to expand...

What does this mean?
 
AlbqOwl said:
If they are put into positions where their views matter on that, I'm sure they would share those beliefs.
Click to expand...

Trump's own views are pretty malleable, so I suppose he'd expect the same from the people he hires. Let's hope he and his minions don't start yet another war.
 
Geoist said:
What does this mean?
Click to expand...

I mean that only those who are in agreement with the goals and objectives of this administration will get the job. It doesn't matter whether the Secretary of State is pro or con same sex marriage or pro life or pro abortion or thinks sanctuary cities should or should not be funded, etc. But the SofS does need to know and share the President's opinion on the direction the country should be going in our relationship with other nations.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Trump's own views are pretty malleable, so I suppose he'd expect the same from the people he hires. Let's hope he and his minions don't start yet another war.
Click to expand...

I hope no administration starts another war. Trump is pretty anti war so far as I can tell, and he is committed not to make things worse than they already are. Whether he and his advisors will agree on the right decision in the necessity to intervene or not intervene, who knows? No other administration has ever gotten that 100% right so I hope people will be as forgiving of the inevitable mistakes a Trump administration will make as they were with all previous administrations.
 
Dittohead not! said:
RAND PAUL: John Bolton is 'totally unfit' for secretary of state, and Rudy Giuliani is 'very similar'

Why? Because they're cheerleaders for the war in Iraq and for regime change in the Middle East, according to Rand, which makes them on the opposite side of some important issues as compared to Trump's stated positions during the campaign.

Would Donald Trump really select people who oppose his views? What do you think?
Click to expand...

Rand Paul is an isolationist, John Bolton is more pragmatic.
 
Dittohead not! said:
RAND PAUL: John Bolton is 'totally unfit' for secretary of state, and Rudy Giuliani is 'very similar'

Why? Because they're cheerleaders for the war in Iraq and for regime change in the Middle East, according to Rand, which makes them on the opposite side of some important issues as compared to Trump's stated positions during the campaign.

Would Donald Trump really select people who oppose his views? What do you think?
Click to expand...

We survived Hillary.

We will survive the next one as well.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I mean that only those who are in agreement with the goals and objectives of this administration will get the job. It doesn't matter whether the Secretary of State is pro or con same sex marriage or pro life or pro abortion or thinks sanctuary cities should or should not be funded, etc. But the SofS does need to know and share the President's opinion on the direction the country should be going in our relationship with other nations.
Click to expand...

I should amend this because in retrospect the SofS is involved in policy re sanctuary cities when dealing with those countries that are funneling illegals into the country. So I withdraw the sanctuary city policy as of no importance re who is SofS.
 
Dittohead not! said:
RAND PAUL: John Bolton is 'totally unfit' for secretary of state, and Rudy Giuliani is 'very similar'

Why? Because they're cheerleaders for the war in Iraq and for regime change in the Middle East, according to Rand, which makes them on the opposite side of some important issues as compared to Trump's stated positions during the campaign.

Would Donald Trump really select people who oppose his views? What do you think?
Click to expand...

Rand Paul is spot on with his statement. Bolton is a loose cannon, and just like Hitlery. If Trump can't figure that out he is dumb as hell, or already bought.
 
RetiredUSN said:
We survived Hillary.

We will survive the next one as well.
Click to expand...

Did we really survive Hillary? How is that defined, anyway? The dead in Benghazi did not survive. Our rule of law was pretty much comatose before she took office, and she contributed to its death.
 
Deuce said:
My brain substituted in Michael Bolton and I was utterly confused as to why anyone would be considering that no-talent assclown in the first place.
Click to expand...

When a man loves a woman. . .

. . . he behaves with a lot more common sense than Trump ever did.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Did we really survive Hillary? How is that defined, anyway? The dead in Benghazi did not survive. Our rule of law was pretty much comatose before she took office, and she contributed to its death.
Click to expand...

At this point and time.......what difference does it really make?

Her words, not mine. ;)

Her extreme humiliation at the hands of the uneducated voters was poetic justice for me, and I hope the bitch suffers miserably for years to come.
 
RetiredUSN said:
At this point and time.......what difference does it really make?

Her words, not mine. ;)

Her extreme humiliation at the hands of the uneducated voters was poetic justice for me, and I hope the bitch suffers miserably for years to come.
Click to expand...

Losing to irrational, slow, uneducated voters is much less humiliating than losing to rational, educated, thoughtful voters.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I hope no administration starts another war.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to this, but I wonder when was the last President we had that wasn't bombing the crap out of someone. Did Carter bomb a bunch of folk?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I hope no administration starts another war. Trump is pretty anti war so far as I can tell, and he is committed not to make things worse than they already are. Whether he and his advisors will agree on the right decision in the necessity to intervene or not intervene, who knows? No other administration has ever gotten that 100% right so I hope people will be as forgiving of the inevitable mistakes a Trump administration will make as they were with all previous administrations.
Click to expand...

I can forgive a lot, but not loading the cabinet with a bunch of war hawks and then getting us involved in another Iraq or Vietnam style war. Been there, done that, don't want to go back.
 
Renae said:
Rand Paul is an isolationist, John Bolton is more pragmatic.
Click to expand...

Cheerleading the war in Iraq is not being pragmatic. Paul does follow the libertarian position that we don't go to war unless there is a clear and present danger to the country.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Losing to irrational, slow, uneducated voters is much less humiliating than losing to rational, educated, thoughtful voters.
Click to expand...

Not by reading the threads that have been generated on here since the election.


My grandkids handle "NO better than the democrats have.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Not by reading the threads that have been generated on here since the election.


My grandkids handle "NO better than the democrats have.
Click to expand...

I've never heard any elected Democrat saying "we're going to sabotage Trump at every turn" the way Republicans did with Obama in 2008.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom