Top Obama Aide: Rand Paul Is ‘Most Intriguing’ Republican

[noviapriani]

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

[noviapriani]

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.

[Rigon]

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.

If he wants to stop aid to Israel, he won't say so in public and he won't vote that way until his second term as president. If he gets that far. Until then, he can believe whatever he wants, but he won't be voicing or voting his conscience. At least not so long as he has national political aspirations, or the tides turn dramatically on popular support for israel. The religious component makes that very unlikely I think.

[zolace]

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?

[zolace]

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.

[zolace]

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.

That's probably fairly close to his position, from what I can tell. I would agree that it's important, but I'm less likely to agree that it is benevolent or worthwhile. Ted Cruz is an evangelical retard. He isn't intriguing at all.

[noviapriani]

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.

[zolace]

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.

[noviapriani]

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

[zolace]

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

We probably agree on most of these in some ways, although in strategies we probably would disagree on some. I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue.

And I did chuckle over Wal Mart.

But you never really discuss those issues, so I can't really use them in a generalization of your positions.

[Ron~Popeil]

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?

Yep. There are political realities that candidates must deal with. That is the nature of the beast in politics. If he makes it into office we will see where he really stands on the issue. 

[noviapriani]

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.

[zolace]

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.

Well, here is the problem. Politics has gotten much personally destructive than I ever recall in the last 6 years. I don't recall a time frame in my lifetime where people intentionally got into the politics of personal destruction as I've seen in these years. The best example is Sarah Palin. I personally find her distasteful as a politician, but the horrible comments made about her family worked well for the democrats, so you can be certain the republicans will emulate them. This is why it's a bad road to have started down. Another example is Reid changes the rules of the Senate because he disagreed with the republicans doing what the democrats used to do, but justifying it by saying the republicans did it more often.

[noviapriani]

I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue.

It tends to be within international affairs. Neo-colonialism outcry is all the rage, and in many cases I find it to be something resulting from a headless heart style syndrome, rather than based on realities of economic interactions.

[zolace]

While we might agree that it isn't a very honorable path, it's the path that's being forced on all politicians at this point. At least forced if politicians want any chance of success.

[zolace]

As far as him having a flawed understanding, I doubt that very much. But he's saying what is politically expedient, just like every other politician, because that is the sole path to success in a country that has been steadily getting mre partisan over the last maybe 20 years. Every single day.

[noviapriani]

As far as him having a flawed understanding, I doubt that very much. But he's saying what is politically expedient, just like every other politician, because that is the sole path to success in a country that has been steadily getting mre partisan over the last maybe 20 years. Every single day.

Indeed, I mention them here and there, and they were more widely discussed several years ago during the Ron Paul craze, but like I said, I mostly only talk about foreign affairs on here now. On international forums I'm often considered to be a staunch conservative. (which makes sense given the different bases that countries operate with)

[noviapriani]

That's fine, I just can't respect them for it, and it's still a douchebag move.
I don't really doubt it. Working with congress has rather jaded me when it comes to some of their capabilities. I've come to realize that a lot of them honestly have no idea what they're talking about in the area of foreign affairs. McCain didn't even used to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and that was while he was running for president (just as an example).

[zolace]

That's fine, I just can't respect them for it, and it's still a douchebag move.
I don't really doubt it. Working with congress has rather jaded me when it comes to some of their capabilities. I've come to realize that a lot of them honestly have no idea what they're talking about in the area of foreign affairs. McCain didn't even used to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and that was while he was running for president (just as an example).

Working with congress would likely get me to rip the heads off of babies. When I was still in the moving business, the corruption I had to deal with in all governments was horrible. The only saving grace was that there are a couple of countries more crooked than the US.

Like Mexico, Italy, and Kuwait.