>not supporting the smartest man in the campaign
You have 10 seconds to tell me why he's unelectable
>hard mode no randlet
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/politics/election/republican-presidential/rand-paul-polls-underestimate-strength-of-his-campaign-20151121
STAND WITH RAND
T
A
N
D
W
I
T
H
R
A
N
D
If this thread dies all trump fags BTFO
>>56525349
I like him.
For me it would be him or.. well fuck it- Sanders. Everything else is better than Shillary. Trump is amusing, but anything higher than a VP? Nah.
I'm still hoping for a Trump/Paul presidency, the banter would be god-tier and Paul could keep Trump in line on the NSA and Fed.
>>56525349
Technically the smartest man is Cruz, but I would still prefer Rand.
>>56525349
>You have 10 seconds to tell me why he's unelectable
The extremely low level of his support.
>>56525349
>tell me why he's unelectable
Votes and math, mainly.
>>56525349
>Libertarian foreign policy
>>56526013
>Imp[lying Trump gives a rat's ass what Paul or anybody else thinks.
Trump is a maverick, he does not take advice.
>>56525349
He's a sill libertarian that doesn't want a homogeneous America. He cares more about the rules of libertarianism than the American people.
>>56526180
>>56526180
>>56526180
>Americans actually like being involved in everyone's shit
Globalismfags
>>56526180
>being a neocon
>>56526180
IF we listened to Paul, Libya and Syria would still be intact and the Paris attacks would never have happened (they came from Libya and Syria).
>>56525349
Hes a manlet.
Also claiming an eye doctor has more understanding of the Cobstitution than a Constitutional Law professor and former president of the Harvard Law review just shows how stupid you are
>>56526299
Rand Paul has an A- from numbersUSA, best of anyone running for President.
>>56526342
>>56526356
>>56526373
>>56526416
Paulfags are delusional.
This self-flagellating foreign policy strategy is only popular among leftists that think everything is America's fault. And they're not going to vote for Paul because of 1 of 1000 other issues that they violently disagree with him on.
But I'm sure if you keep saying that you're a "Libertarian" instead of a Conservative then your liberal friends will just laugh at you behind your back instead of to your face. Which is a win for you, I guess.
>>56526013
That would be a fucking sitcom
listening to Rand tell trump he's a fucking idiot all day
>>56526665
Who do you support on foreign policy? Recall that every time we've taken out a dictator (Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad partially) radical jihadists replace them in the vacuum.
Also recall that we've increased bombing terrorists every year, only to have the problem increased because we've killed so many civilians.
You might not want to hear it but it's a fact that our actions are making us less safe. i would like to hear what you think, though.
>>56525349
While the news focuses on ISIS, somebody with a foreign policy like Rand's has no chance of winning. If the edward snowden fiasco happened months before the election, he would have a good chance
>>56525349
He is a sore loser and a kek. He will get nowhere with quotes like this. He is not strong enough to be president. He is not presidential material like his father was. Either Trump or shill Rubio will be nominated.
>>56526299
96% constitutionally voting record
>but some how dosnt care about the American people
>>56526299
Name one candidate who's for a homogeneous America.
>>56526665
Look at what western intervention has accomplished: >>56526956
>>56526956
>>56527184
>Hussein
The balance of power shifted in Iraq from Sunni to Shia after Hussein was ousted. In a post-surge Iraq, the Iraqi government was forced by us to be inclusive in civil government as well as military. When we left, Maliki fired all the sunni and they chimped out. The mistake was leaving in the first place to be honest.
>Gaddafi
Libya is an interesting case. It sort of like the Obama administration asked themselves "how do we engage just enough to cause chaos, but be hands-off just enough to not be able to do anything about the chaos?"
We should have either left Libya alone or committed more to help the transitional government not get BTFO within months of establishing.
>Assad
The US aid to the opposition has barely done anything to destabilize the Assad government. Assad did that by himself. And now we're in a situation that unless Assad goes, the fighting will never stop.
On foreign policy in general I think it is the job the US to make sure there are no areas of the world where terror groups can freely plan and train (pre-2001 Afghanistan, Iraq/Syria now, etc).
Saying that "Everytime we've taken out a dictator radical jihadists replace them" is so dumbed down to the point of being unhelpful to the conversation.
>>56527593
Also any Europeans that are reading this thread should support Assad going and I'll tell you why.
The majority of the refugees in Europe are Sunni that are fleeing Assad. They fear their homes will be barrel-bombed or w/e if they stay or that they'll be considered a potential Sunni extremist.
They don't want to join ISIS so they leave the country and go to Europe.
If Assad is still standing when the conflict is over (if it ever ends) then all of those people are NEVER going to return to Syria. They're going to say there will be retribution for leaving the country, or that Assad is a murderer and they can't go back.
So if you don't like all the refugees, the best thing for you is to support efforts to remove Assad.
>>56527593
>>56527860
fucking shill leave this website and never come back
and for the record only about 10-20% of the "refugees" are syrian.
>>56527593
You are so fucking bluepilled jesus
>>56527995
The Syrians and Iraqis make up move than half of the refugees, most of which are Sunni.
They're not going to go back unless they think the country they left has changed and is more inclusive to Sunnis. That won't happen with Assad in power and the Iraqi government in the state it is.
>>56528100
>MUH REDPILL
How's high school?
>>56525349
Who is the dude in the bottom right corner? I saw him in the CN Tower a few months back, and recognized his face, but have no idea who he is.
>>56527593
I'm glad we can have a real discussion.
>The mistake was leaving in the first place to be honest.
Given that we already involved ourselves so heavily already, that point can be made. If we had never gone in the first place, it would have been a better situation.
>We should have either left Libya alone or committed more to help the transitional government not get BTFO within months of establishing.
We pretty much agree here, I'll add that going after Gaddafi at all was particulalry bad because we managed to negotiate an end to his nuclear weapons program. By doing that, and STILL assisting his downfall, we've pretty much lost all credibility in negotiating about nuclear weapons.
>The US aid to the opposition has barely done anything to destabilize the Assad government. Assad did that by himself. And now we're in a situation that unless Assad goes, the fighting will never stop.
While I don't deny their are legitimate grass roots movements against Assad, the west's support of his opposition made the situation worse and has prolonged this civil war. Recall that their were movements against pretty much every ME leader during the Arab Spring, including Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, but we focus on Syria only because they are allied with Iran. The U.S. has an interst in checking Shia expansion, but it's not worth funding more radical Sunni's, which is excacltuy what is happening with the al-Nusra front. Part of that support has gone to ISIS, a predictable blunder as that seems to happen whenever we fund these opposition movements.
>Saying that "Everytime we've taken out a dictator radical jihadists replace them" is so dumbed down .
it's simplified, yes, but talking about foreign policy to the public has to be. I stand by the statement, it should be our policy to never fund Islamist groups in order to depose someone we don't like. We've done it many times, including Afghanistan in the '70s, and I can't recall a single time it's worked out in the long term.
>>56528456
Sorry, bottom left. I reckonize that nigger.
>>56528549
Lindsey Graham I believe.
>>56527593
>left Iraq too early
>instigated chaos in Libya for no reason
>Assad's being destroyed by his own retardedness, America just helps
As someone who supports Rand, you're right about all three. But goddamnit, we need to scale back our willingness to intervene for no good reason. We need a smarter, leaner foreign policy, not what the Democrats have and just flip-flop and do everything based on what makes fat Dems sitting around at home in the USA feel good. And I'm not willing to flip that equation and do what makes Republicans feel good at home. We need results-driven foreign policy, not feels-based.
>>56528539
>we should never have gone to Iraq in the first place
That is long since passed, and arguing about it does nothing now. We also knew Saddam had chemical weapons, because we helped him get them. He was most definitely going to hand those off to some anti-American terrorists at some point, seeing how virulently anti-American he was.
>we should never fund Islamist groups
A thousand times this.
>>56528216
Hows that shitty job paying you?
>>56528733
>That is long since passed, and arguing about it does nothing now.
This is really the only thing the American masses agree about on foreign policy, at least those who would be sympathetic to Paul's views.
I think Pointing out that the policies of Clinton/Bush/Rubio haven't worked and that we need to stop funding Islamists is popular enough even on the right to get Paul votes, if ]repeated enough.
>>56528539
>On Iraq
I agree it would have been better off if we had not invaded in the first place. But I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer that thinks Bush lied to us to get us in Iraq in the first place. The intelligence that everyone looked at (including all the senators that voted for the AUMF, clinton, kerry, etc) agreed that they had chemical weapons at least. Not a huge leap seeing as how Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past. In his FBI interviews he said that he dismantled the program because he was afraid of rogue generals getting hold of the weapons, but he had every intention of started the program up again soon.
Which brings me to my final point about Iraq. Considering that the past 4 presidents have had to use Military force in Iraq and considering the Iran-Iraq war, I think we would have had to depose Saddam eventually, maybe not in 2003 but def in the next couple of decades.
>On Libya
I think you make a great point about Nuclear weapons, the same thing has happened in Ukraine. We ask the Ukrainians to get rid of their nukes in exchange for assurances of their territorial integrity, then when there is a problem we basically say that "it wasn't a REAL treaty so we don't have to do shit". I doubt any country will make the mistake that Ukraine did and trust us on nukes.
>On Syria
The point is that Assad played the war perfectly from a realpolitik angle. He went after the moderate opposition almost exclusively and ceded territory to the Jihadists. He wanted to beat the moderates and leave the Jihadists in power so he could say to the world: "Look, I have no legit opposition, they are just all terrorists". If we had gotten more involved from the start both covertly and diplomatically we could have forced Assad to go before the radicalization happened.
Got my yard sign plus one in my brothers lawn, there is only one other road through my area, gotta get the word out there.
>>56528733
>As someone who supports Rand, you're right about all three. But goddamnit, we need to scale back our willingness to intervene for no good reason. We need a smarter, leaner foreign policy, not what the Democrats have and just flip-flop and do everything based on what makes fat Dems sitting around at home in the USA feel good. And I'm not willing to flip that equation and do what makes Republicans feel good at home. We need results-driven foreign policy, not feels-based.
I'd respect Paul more if he went FULL ISOLATIONIST like his father. Instead he seems to want to sit on the fence and say we need to engage some, but not all. There needs to be some strategy or doctrine behind foreign policy or it's completely useless and incomprehensible. Cruz is guilty of this too.
Obama has this problem, he seems to take every foreign policy issue on a case by case basis and ends up half committing to everything, which ends up being the worst result possible. I see Rand doing the same thing sometimes.
Basically what I'm saying is, either be an isolationist or an interventionist, if you're somewhere in the middle your foreign policy is shit-tier
>>56527593
>being this american
>>56529627
As a supporter of both Pauls, I'm glad Rand is being more realistic. The fact is Randl is the least interventionist on either side but also acknowledges we can't go all the way to his father's view.
He's legitimately a Realist rather than a isolationist, and I think that's better. He's not "sitting on the fence", he just has legitimately good judgement.
>>56530130
We just disagree then.
But that does bring up the point I made here:>>56526665
Paul will NEVER get elected in a republican primary saying what he is saying. Because the only people who agree with him are leftist "free palestine" types who hate everything about American foreign policy. And it just so happens that those people disagree with Paul on everything else.
They're far more likely to vote for Bernie Sanders in a primary and then vote for Hillary Clinton in a general because of "muh reproductive rights" or some other bullshit.
>>56530443
>Paul will NEVER get elected in a republican primary saying what he is saying.
Probably true, he can't escape from his father's legacy though. He'd lose any votes he has now if he did. At this point he just needs to do what he did at the last debate, forcefully and intelligently state his case and hope people take notice.
There is legitimate benefit to having a foreign policy debate rather than "Let's these fuckers!" and "Don't do anything".
I'm voting for Donald J. Trump, or I won't be voting at all.
Sorry, but I'm not sorry.
Committed isolationalist
>>56530916
Conservative Realist.
I support him.
But I know he appears too different. I feel like Americans, or at least most of them, don't want to change to much. I think when you start talking like rand does, old folks get scared he'll defund social security.
Anyone over 45 has 25 years invested into social security. The least thing they want is to toss that 13% they paid away.
>>56526696
good idea actually
>>56526416
(they were Belgian nationals)
>>56531106
>Paris: Made in Libya, Not Syria
http://www.unz.com/plee/paris-made-in-libya-not-syria/
Abdelhamid Abaaoud is suspected of being a leader of a branch of the Islamic State in Syria called Katibat al-Battar al Libi, which has its origins in Libya. This particular branch has attracted many Belgian fighters because of language and cultural ties, said Pieter van Ostaeyen, who tracks Belgian militants.
Many Belgian Muslims are of Moroccan origin, he said, and speak a dialect found in eastern Morocco that is similar to a Libyan dialect. Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, who studies jihadi groups at the Middle East Forum, a research center in Washington, said there was no evidence yet that the Paris attacks had been ordered by Adnani or the Islamic State’s overall leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
But he added that the soldiers at Libyan branch that includes Abaaoud has played a prominent role in exporting violence. One of their tasks he said, has been to organize plots that “involved foreign fighters, sleeper cells in Europe that were connected with an operative inside of Syria and Iraq, usually in a lower to midlevel position.”
It's both.
>>56525349
you know, out of all the candidates, he's the only one i can see leading this country...
too bad no one knows he exists.
I've been trying to get into the #projectpaul kik chat but the new app update removes hashtag searchs :^(
I wouldn't vote for Rand even if he was the nominee
I'd probably stay at home
The guy is just pathetic
>>56531574
Trump keep the shit posting on Twitter
>>56531515
Don't worry trump will drop out then he has a chance
Stand with Rand
>>56533787
Had to save that pic
CAN'T STAND THE RAND
>>56526129
>votes and math
You know every poll is cherry picked and made up right? Or did you not read OPs link?
he can't talk.Period
>>56534448
who is Carson
https://youtu.be/BnPBrPUuvQg
>>56534622
a nigger that is a gun nut.
>muh 2nd amnendment
>>56526013
This is my pipe dream. Besides a possible Paul/Paul presidency, Trump/Paul would be what I want.
>>56534802
>gun nut
I absolute don't trust him on guns any more then most dems
>>56526180
I don't know, I would like to leave Europe and the Middle East to rot. What exactly does constantly fighting abroad do besides make Europeans and other faggots get all pissy?
>>56525349
>why he's unelectable
Because no one wants to elect him, idiot.
Rand Paul is the only choice
Marco Rubio wants to increase the defecit
Cruz is the GOP's Hillary, only he hasn't had time to flip flop on the issues yet
Trump/Carson: They're going to blow it. It's already happened. Don't believe the polls that polled 400~900 land line users
Kasich: GOP's Joe Biden
Fiorina: no government experience, and literally no platform (same as Carson/Trump, really)
Jeb!: Lost as soon as Trump and Carson gained steam
Rand is the only guy who will ACTUALLY balance the budget by gutting entitlements, buttfucking the IRS, teabagging the Fed, and vetoing any spending increase so the faggotrons in the house and senate actually have to re-vote on everything bill by bill.
Rand will fix the bull shit that has been fostered since the Eisenhower admin. He will run the contractors out of washington unless they are actively contributing to the betterment of the US. He'll reform the military and get the welfare queens and women out by raising standards and slimming down the force structure. He won't throw you in jail for having opinions, and he won't spy on your internet traffic and phone lines.
I know that /pol/ ironically supports Trump because of "muh angry young man feels", but that slimy yankee has no fucking clue how to govern this massive nation.
If anyone else gets elected, I can't wait to say "aren't you upset Rand isn't president?" when whoever gets elected inevitably screws the pooch.
>>56527593
Iraq
Muh chemical weapons/ muh Jewish neocons/muh neo-Cold War proxy wars
Take down secular, ordering force in the region
Quickly becomes Iranian puppet state
>Our mistake was leaving
Why the fuck were we there in the first place, numbnuts? And what were we supposed to do, occupy Iraq forever?
Libya
Again, assist in destabilizing secular ordering force in the region
Country is now a hellhole
Assad
Give a bunch of weapons to "moderates" to destabilize secular ordering force in the region
"Moderates" in an inbred clannish hellhole turn out to be, suprise, inbred clannish violent fucks
Don't tarnish Kissinger, who made an effort to dissuade Nixon from getting into war on Israel's behalf (see the Yom Kippur war), with your asskissing of Jewish neocon foreign policy
>>56536057
>This
If you're on /pol/ and you hate Jews, you cannot support neocon foreign policy.
That is one of the stupidest hypocrisies on this board where Americans are concerned.
If we go into Syria with a Vietnam, mission creep agenda (like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz want) we are going to start WWIII for real. When the faggots who support intervention start getting drafted, and complaining, I'm going to be laughing my ass off.
>>56536057
>Saddam
>Ordering force in the region
Stopped reading there. Confirmed retard
>>56536402
EXACTLY
>>56528539
BTFO
>>56527593
Also, remember domino theory? Applies here. I doubt the Arab Spring would have happened if we had not killed Sadaam
>>56529235
>I don't think bush lied
He didn't, but he was manipulated by Jewish neocons with Israel's, not America's, interest at heart
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/list-of-neocons-for-Iraq-war.htm
>there are moderates in Syria
Wrong. There are no "moderates" or "democrats" as westerners understand them (with apologies perhaps to the Kurds) in Syria. Cousin marriage, especially the type that Arabs practice, creates closely knit clans with little tolerance for outsiders. You know all those stereotypes about violent rednecks? They apply tenfold here. Arab societies are the organized usually by a "king of the clans" structure. This is how the House of Saud, the Hashemites in Jordan, the Al Said clan in Oman, the Al Thani clan in Qatar, the Al Sabah clan in Kuwait, and the Al Assad clan in Syria (despite them being not Arabs but Alawites, I think) There's no genetic disposition to civil orders, it has been and will continue to be strongman politics
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/syria/
>>56536048
>buttfucking the IRS, teabagging the Fed, and vetoing any spending increase so the faggotrons in the house and senate actually have to re-vote on everything bill by bill
And then getting shot in the fucking head like JFK did
Then the cycle starts all over, America stays blue-pilled for the next 40 years buying loaves of bread at $45 until the next angry manlet comes into position
>>56536546
I didn't say it was Scandinavia in the desert
But a secular, strong dictator that attempted to stop rebellions is better than a failed state and a fucking caliphate
