He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel? I was very opposed to President Obama's statements when he was campaigning on a platform of a united Jerusalem for Israel as a capital. But I'm not calling out Paul for this, I didn't mention Israel as one of the topics that I had a problem with in terms of intellectual honesty. Like you said, it is a pretty common stance to take and politically prudent. Unless I missed a post, I think that means you are mostly against him because he excessively bashes Hillary? Well, that's how politicians work...things like Obama calling republicans terrorists and nonsense like that. Since it worked for him to gullible sections of the public, I would assume there will be much more of it. I imagine he understands the most he can do is slightly move the discussion towards smaller government and less military adventurism, but that's just being realistic. He can do absolutely nothing without power. So people can only do what they can do. I found his targeting of her douchey yes, especially him targeting her family on a personal level. Like I said, I really only follow him through my interests in foreign affairs and pretty much his entire foreign policy platform thus far has been one of bashing Hillary Clinton and dishonestly representing foreign affairs as they currently stand and have transpired over the last six years, coupled with a deeply flawed understanding of our foreign aid structures. |
|
|
|
The positions you espouse here are pretty typically democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the case. That kind of is the meaning of the word partisan, although I don't find you are horribly so. I agree, but that is mostly because I only talk about foreign affairs here, where I tend to be much more liberal, I tend to be more libertarian in my economic and social stances, with a couple of economic exceptions. I've also been painted a democrat often because I wasn't in love with Ron Paul's platform and argued against it. Which, at the time, automatically made me a socialist. In fairness, I can only go by the positions you take. If all the positions you mention are democrat, then your posture here is somewhat partisan in fact. Again, I don't really have a problem with that. Some of my positions here are fairly republican, although socially I'm pretty far left of the democrats. Also, militarily, I'm probably more anti war than the Dem party. Areas where i tend to lean conservative: I am strongly against domestic protectionism (something that President Obama in part campaigned on). Very pro-free trade. In favor of privatized social security. Pro-second amendment / against gun bans. Pro-sweat shops / Bangladesh garment factories. I don't buy into the neocolonial argument presented with regards to US operations overseas. Pro-TANF reforms anti-affirmative action I actually like Wal-Mart Anti-fair trade Pro genetically modified food Some areas where I tend to differ more from conservatives / social conservatives: International affairs (because modern conservatives simply have consistently poor or non-existent foreign affairs platforms, they tend to rather rely on economic and social issues to win power, not good foreign policy). Universal Healthcare Most social issues (which I tend to be more libertarian on, including issues like abortion so non-social conservative / religious conservative). The current desire to decrease food stamp benefits and welfare even further (despite the fact that we are operating under Republican proposed reforms). The Fairtax Immigration I am anti many domestic agricultural subsidies Where I am neutral: Environmental policies War on Drugs policies |
|
|
|
He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
Because it's political suicide. If you think that shouldn't be a factor in his comments, then you are being pretty naive. And I know you're not. I assume you would be equally against any Democrat politician who wants to send aid to Israel? I was very opposed to President Obama's statements when he was campaigning on a platform of a united Jerusalem for Israel as a capital. But I'm not calling out Paul for this, I didn't mention Israel as one of the topics that I had a problem with in terms of intellectual honesty. Like you said, it is a pretty common stance to take and politically prudent. |
|
|
|
rhodium has lovely volatility ... http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_ch...rly_graphs.cgiit was up to 10,000 dollars an ounce in july 2008 then down to fuck all 1000 dollars january 2009, then back up to 3000 dollars in march 2010 then down to 900 dollars last xmas, now back on a roll rising up fast 50% |
|
|
|
or rent it out and buy another house. I have a few friends who started doing that, and have since quit their jobs and do that as their sole source of income.
how did they do during the recession? they cant hire someone or their relatives to do the property management? doesnt seem like a full time job all the time .seems to be a solid source of income especially when this country is getting more and more crowded . He did okay. I shouldn't have said it's his sole income, but it's definitely his primary income. I think he probably pulls three shifts part time at a gas station. He started by buying one house and fixing it up. While renovating it he realized he could divide it into something for him, and a rental space. Eventually he found the second house he could do the same to, so moved out of his and rented it, moved into the beat-up house, and lived there while he renovated. Now I think he has 10 that he rents out and an 11th that he lives in. 10 rental places keeps him pretty busy but hiring someone to manage it would kill his profit. Are those 10 houses together in one place or one area or scattered? They're relatively close. I've only been to one, a three story house that he rents the first two floors and lives on the third. But they're all probably within a few miles of each other. perhaps i should do a cash out refinance to get cash to buy the next house instead. that way i get to keep all the tax benefits of a primary residence loan? Do you itemize? Are you in a high enough bracket that the savings on your marginal rate offset the differential interest? yup,let's go with the the hypothetical 25% married jointly bracket ... Assuming you are married filing jointly at a 25% federal marginal rate, and you have a $150,000 mortgage at 4.4% interest over 15 years, then your average annual federal tax savings is about $950. For comparison, you are paying about $3,700 in interest per year. So your net is negative $2,750. Over the term of the mortgage, it's negative $41,000. By contrast, the 2014 standard deduction for married filing jointly is $12,400. So, unless you are itemizing deductions in excess of about $15,000 annually, then you are better off with the mortgage paid off from a tax perspective. fuck mortgage worries, ye should whack ten grand or a hundred grand whatever ye have going spare on rhodium since scoffing on yer last xmas turkey, in 8 months rhodium has increased by about 50% from 900 dollars to about under 1350 dollars an ounce, nearly 250 of those dollars in the last 30 days on a rocket rise up expected to go to 2000 dollars in a month or two at this rate http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/rh0365lnb.html |
|
|
|
|
He has supported $5 billion in aid to Israel for years now (since 2011), and with recent votes to increase it, it doesn't seem like he is going to go back to his "no aid for anyone" stance anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
His foreign policy is similar to several humanitarian leaders we discussed before....handouts to other countries tend to be counterproductive, as it causes corruption and dependency. I thought you agreed with me on that one, but I could be wrong...it was quite a while ago. I don't recall the conversation. But saying he wants to pull all aid, is like saying he doesn't care about the Suez Canal, or about maintaining US Spheres of influence in Latin and South America, or about being able to rely on Azerbaijan to put pressure on Iran, etc. Aid, even small amounts, are vital international relations tools that we rely on to protect our interests overseas. He would paint aid as us giving out freebies, but really we do it because it is mutually beneficial for us and acts as important sources of political capital for us to utilize. Him saying he is against aid, is almost tantamount to him saying he isn't interested in the US playing a role in foreign affairs or in guarding our overseas interests. Aid is one of the primary ways in which we do that. Aid can have a Dutch Disease effect and from a humanitarian level and economic level I'm not very in love with the way that aid is dispersed, either through government or (especially) through the private market. I think it is one of the least accountable markets in existence. But that doesn't change the fact that aid is an important political tool. |
|
|
|
The positions you espouse here are pretty typically democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the case. That kind of is the meaning of the word partisan, although I don't find you are horribly so. I agree, but that is mostly because I only talk about foreign affairs here, where I tend to be much more liberal, I tend to be more libertarian in my economic and social stances, with a couple of economic exceptions. I've also been painted a democrat often because I wasn't in love with Ron Paul's platform and argued against it. Which, at the time, automatically made me a socialist. |
|
|
|
His foreign policy is similar to several humanitarian leaders we discussed before....handouts to other countries tend to be counterproductive, as it causes corruption and dependency. I thought you agreed with me on that one, but I could be wrong...it was quite a while ago. No, he changed his budget to allow for $5 billion in aid for Israel, and claimed that taking aid away from Israel was never on the books. He is now pro-US aid to Israel. Anti-US aid to everyone else. Which, in and of itself shows a very poor grasp of international affairs and politics, especially during a time in which he is trying to insist that he isn't isolationist. All politicians throw a little red meat to the people he is trying to get votes from. Look at Hillary on gay marriage. Same sort of thing. That's fine, but it also absolutely means that he "flip flopped". Not that I've ever really cared about that as much as some people seem to, I'm fine with people changing their opinions. But it was absolutely a big change, especially since he used to argue that we shouldn't be sending aid specifically to Israel because it is a developed country and he even said it would be in Israel's best interest for us not to while citing the Dutch Disease phenomenon. Which indicates that he firmly believes that US aid to Israel might actually be hurting Israel, but he is ok with that because it is politically popular to support Israel (which is fine, but once again certainly a change). I can't type that fast. Neither can I. |
|
|
|
You can't do what he did, in proposing to cut all aid, then say you never proposed cutting aid. You also can't say that you want to end all aid, then vote "aye" to funding the Iron Dome. Yeah nuance is great, but he really can't claim to have always held the position he holds.
He wants to cut all aid. He doesn't want to target any one group, or any set of groups. This is pretty straight forward. Sadly, world affairs may cause some temporary changes in timetable, but you seem to want to make that the rule, rather than the exception. But I understand you hate your former views. I just find it pointless to be all extremist like that. All perspectives have some merit. Which is different than all perspectives have merit in all positions. I know you just haven't gotten to my post yet since you're going in order, but Paul is no longer in favor of cutting all foreign aid. He is in favor of cutting all foreign aid except for US aid to Israel. |
|
|
|
|
2.) I am not comparing Hillary to Paul as you seem to think I am. Saying "but Hillary is worse!" isn't really relevant to my point. In fact, it is a deflection of said point. I brought up Hillary because it was a lot of comments he made about her and international affairs (since I worked at the State Department at the time under her) that I found to be intentionally dishonest. That's her only connection to this. Examples would be him trying to label Libya as "Hillary's war" blaming her for "anarchy" blaming her for Syria even though she disagreed with President Obama on that issue, going after her and her husband for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Just general douchebaggery. Side note: even though I disagreed with his father Ron Paul, I never stated anything but admiration for the man himself. Me disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that I don't like them. You of all people should know that.
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I suspect that is merely partisan bias on your part. I can come up with a lot longer list of Hillary dishonesty than most people could come up with about Paul. 1.) The partisan bias idea is fairly laughable (for the most part). Despite the rep I have around here (due in large part to my focus on foreign affairs), I vote pretty consistently libertarian, especially in the primaries (though I voted for Obama in the last general election). Prior to that, I was a registered republican. I just tend to not be conservative in the area that I talk about here the most. |
|
|
|
They say he's the only candidate who has articulated a message that is potentially appealing to young Americans. Well, yeah. Articulate enough wildly - conflicting messages and you'll eventually get pretty much everyone covered.
I think we should stop providing aid to Israel.
I never said we should stop providing aid to Israel.
Bam. Everyone = happy.
Actually, from the little I've noticed, the comments were: "I think we should stop aid everywhere because we can't afford it" "Does that include Israel?" "Sure" Next interview: "So do you want to target Israel for cutting aid?" "No, I want to cut aid everywhere." "AHA...you flip flopped" Such is the nature of reporting in the US. No, he changed his budget to allow for $5 billion in aid for Israel, and claimed that taking aid away from Israel was never on the books. He is now pro-US aid to Israel. Anti-US aid to everyone else. Which, in and of itself shows a very poor grasp of international affairs and politics, especially during a time in which he is trying to insist that he isn't isolationist. |
|
|
|
Views change and people kind of understand that, but his problem is and will be, his goals have changed and so has his target audience, and I don't think that Rand has been all that graceful in making his overtures look like anything more than posturing. I'm not having luck pasting links on my phone for some reason, but this is an easy Google. He's being skewered for this from all sides. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ng-aid-israel/This sort of thing is always amusing. Paul seemed clear to me that he wants to cut all foreign aid. He said that is what he wanted. Part of that is cutting aid to Israel, which is part of everyone. Then he was asked if he wanted to cut aid specifically to Israel. So the answer is not specific to Israel, but to everyone in general. This appears to be that politifact doesn't understand the nuance. I'm sure they get the distinction, however nuance isn't what the voting mob wants...or better yet, it isn't what people at politifact think the voting mob wants, so instead they go after the stark contrast. When trying to cater for junkies, you don't put out a balanced three course meal. You pile frosting on a platter. |
|
|
|
It pisses me off that people think that young Americans are libertarians waiting to be discovered, as if being in favor of pot legalization equates directly with being anti-regulation. Young people are statistically fairly convinced that climate change is a problem worth fixing and they tend to approve of government solutions to poverty and income inequality.
Like paying lip service to a couple no-brainer social issues and non-interventionism will get an entire generation on board.
No, the white male "don't touch my stuff" toddler mentality voting bloc already has a party.
I think if you look at the platforms of actual libertarian candidates instead of seemingly going by your experience with libertarian and Randian idealists, you'll be hard pressed to find a candidate in favor of getting rid of all taxes, privatizing all roads, getting rid of the standing army, scrapping welfare programs (incl. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.), completely and 100% deregulating food and drugs (incl. antibiotics), removing all environmental regulations, etc. To use a couple of otters as an example, there are a lot more Publiuses than there are rothbards out there. |
|
|
|
They say he's the only candidate who has articulated a message that is potentially appealing to young Americans. Well, yeah. Articulate enough wildly - conflicting messages and you'll eventually get pretty much everyone covered.
I think we should stop providing aid to Israel.
I never said we should stop providing aid to Israel.
Bam. Everyone = happy.
Well, I think you're forgetting, for example, that a good chunk of Ron Paul's 2008 supporters went on to vote for Obama. So yes, libertarianism among young people is largely about non-interventionism and no-brainer social issues. That's what young people care about. But even with that aside, I still don't think this is a fair characterization of libertarianism in America. Most libertarians do in fact support government solutions. Just not to the extent that they become leftarded. |
|
|
|
|
You are getting more desperate , sana. Sad.Why is that?
You know, you might sound somewhat convincing if you guys did not keep avoiding questions that challenge your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
rigon, we all already know that alot of what drives you in your arguements on many subjects is your hostility to the God of the Bible. sana also. When it leads to distortions, however, it is a serious problem.
Is it murder, when a human being destroys a family of chimps?
What makes someone innocent? Declaring babies innocent (true or not) does not answer the question.
Does this mean that the allies, bombing Germany, were murderers? When the state uses the DP, is that always murder?
|
|
|
|
So it's the correct move, much like it was for Obama. I wouldn't say that the comparison here with Rand Paul and President Obama is very apt. I'll see if I can find some specific examples so that I can illustrate what I am talking about better. |
|
|
|
99% of her stuff is fluff, and I can't respect that. I'd rather have fluff (which is part of bureaucrats speaking with one voice on issues) than blatant dishonesty for the sake of personal political gain, and a willingness to engage in poor policy formulation for the sake of political gain. Fluff is annoying, but it isn't as dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
