Rand Paul: ‘Huge Percentage’ Of Washington Elites Are Neoconservatives, Hardly Any Ar

[Chris]

He doesn't consider noninterventionism in this interview...

Rand Paul: ‘Huge Percentage’ Of Washington Elites Are Neoconservatives, Hardly Any Are Realists (http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/23/rand-paul-huge-percentage-of-washington-elites-are-neoconservatives-hardly-any-are-realists/)


Rand Paul: We’ll be talking about basically the theme of conservative realism. The concept is that there is a position of foreign policy that I think is very much attractive to Conservatives. There hasn’t been a leader filling that spot as well because there are two views, basically, espoused in foreign policy.

One is that we’re nowhere any time. That would be isolationism, but there’s another extreme that we’re everywhere all the time. That would be interventionism. I think conservative realism is the more moderate position which says that: you follow the Constitution. If we have to become involved in war, enmeshed in conflict, you have to involve the Congress to accomplish what the Constitution has intended.

Then there’s also there’s the second part of the debate. The debate is over whether or not there’s a national security interest, whether it’s a vital American interest, which is needed before we go to war. I think often, too often, that those debates really never occur. We just have a conclusion – we’ll stand up, say it’s in our national security interest. In theory, that needs to be a debate. Like last year, there was a big debate over Syria and I was one of the loudest voices saying that it’s a mistake to give weapons to the Syrian rebels, because one day we’ll have to fight those weapons. A year later it turns out that I was accurate.

We now, I think, are forced to become involved....

[Peter1469]

This is the part Ransom hedges on.


Then there’s also there’s the second part of the debate. The debate is over whether or not there’s a national security interest, whether it’s a vital American interest, which is needed before we go to war. I think often, too often, that those debates really never occur. We just have a conclusion – we’ll stand up, say it’s in our national security interest.

[Chris]

One could say that's the noninterventionist position, not to run and hide like isolationistd, not to rush in like neocon interventionists, but to assess the situation in terms of whether to defend against risks to our interests.

[Green Arrow]

One could say that's the noninterventionist position, not to run and hide like isolationistd, not to rush in like neocon interventionists, but to assess the situation in terms of whether to defend against risks to our interests.

That is 100% the non-interventionist perspective.

[Green Arrow]

This is the part Ransom hedges on.



Don't say its name, you might summon it from the Abyss.

[Peter1469]

Don't say its name, you might summon it from the Abyss.

I can handle it.

[Mac-7]

Very few Americans subscribe to the extreme "non intervention" aka isolationist position of the libertarians.

[Peter1469]

Very few Americans subscribe to the extreme "non intervention" aka isolationist position of the libertarians.

Most libertarians don't subscribe to isolationism. Many do, however.

I am in the realism camp. With public education as it is, realism is the smallest group around today.

[Mac-7]

Most libertarians don't subscribe to isolationism. Many do, however.

I am in the realism camp. With public education as it is, realism is the smallest group around today.

you still spout isolation by a different name.

what US foreign policy involving the military do you support?

[Peter1469]

you still spout isolation by a different name.

what US foreign policy involving the military do you support?

Oh boy....

Geopolitics and realism. Only use overt military force to address vital national security interest and only when there is a consensus in the nation to do so. Don't fight battles that you don't have to. If others are involved, let them bleed themselves before committing. Basically what the US did in WWI, WWII, ect, except public school made it so you wouldn't understand what I am saying.

[Mac-7]

Oh boy....

Geopolitics and realism. Only use overt military force to address vital national security interest and only when there is a consensus in the nation to do so. Don't fight battles that you don't have to. If others are involved, let them bleed themselves before committing. Basically what the US did in WWI, WWII, ect,

except public school made it so you wouldn't understand what I am saying.



Your answer is so vague that I don't think YOU understand what you're saying.

"don't fight battles we don't have to."

seriously?

thats your big idea as if my side believes in fighting unnecessary battles?

sheesh.

you should go back and study your Dick and Jane Reader on Foreign Policy again because you may have missed something.

[Peter1469]

Your answer is so vague that I don't think YOU understand what you're saying.

"don't fight battles we don't have to."

seriously?

thats your big idea as if my side believes in fighting unnecessary battles?

sheesh.

you should go back and study your Dick and Jane Reader on Foreign Policy again because you may have missed something.

No thanks. The time for Neocon warmongers is over. There is no need for me to cater to your strange needs.

[Mac-7]

No thanks. The time for Neocon warmongers is over. There is no need for me to cater to your strange needs.

Again, your illusion that conservatives are warmongers is simply unrealistic.

[Green Arrow]

Again, your illusion that conservatives are warmongers is simply unrealistic.

History disagrees with you.

[Mac-7]

History disagrees with you.

Your history is warped.

[Peter1469]

Again, your illusion that conservatives are warmongers is simply unrealistic.

I said neocons.

[Mac-7]

I said neocons.

Libs consider neocons to be conservatives, right?

[Peter1469]

Libs consider neocons to be conservatives, right?

Ask a lib.

Neocons are really liberals who left the Dem party in disgust during Vietnam. No, they are not really conservatives.

[Mac-7]

Ask a lib.

Neocons are really liberals who left the Dem party in disgust during Vietnam. No, they are not really conservatives.

Ok, that's also my definition.

so Rand Paul thinks everyone in Washington today is a former democrat?

[Peter1469]

Ok, that's also my definition.

so Rand Paul thinks everyone in Washington today is a former democrat?

If you want to know what Rand Paul thinks, ask Rand Paul.

The Washington establishment is just two sides of the same Statist coin.

[Mac-7]

The Washington establishment is just two sides of the same Statist coin.

I have used the same line for years except in the original version it is that fascists and socialists are just two sides of the same big government coin.

[Peter1469]

I have used the same line for years except in the original version it is that fascists and socialists are just two sides of the same big government coin.

We are talking about the US.

[Green Arrow]

Your history is warped.

Not really.

[Mac-7]

We are talking about the US.

We have fascists and socialists in the US.

thinking of it in economic terms most liberal democrats grew up as socialists who believed government should own all the wealth and distribute it fairly.

but libs have realized that managing the means of production that creates wealth is hard work and libs are not very good at it.

so they are now economic fascists who allow private citizens to produce the wealth while government taxes the profits for its own use.

[Peter1469]

We have fascists and socialists in the US.

thinking of it in economic terms most liberal democrats grew up as socialists who believed government should own all the wealth and distribute it fairly.

but libs have realized that managing the means of production that creates wealth is hard work and libs are not very good at it.

so they are now economic fascists who allow private citizens to produce the wealth while government taxes the profits for its own use.


So you agree that the establishment of both main parties are two sides of the same coin. Great.

[Mac-7]

So you agree that the establishment of both main parties are two sides of the same coin. Great.

I have never defended the republican leadership in congress today.

what I have been trying to tell you is that the republican base agrees with libertarians 80% of the time.

which means the repub leadership can be improved.

but I don't think you want to see a better Republican Party.

you are really working for the democrats and just won't admit it.

[Chris]

Very few Americans subscribe to the extreme "non intervention" aka isolationist position of the libertarians.

It's hard to believe some people persist in conflating noninterventionism and isolationism even after it's been explained clearly. Neocons with myopic vision.

[Mac-7]

It's hard to believe some people persist in conflating noninterventionism and isolationism even after it's been explained clearly. Neocons with myopic vision.

It has been explained by isolationists who want to be called non interventionists.

[Chris]

I have never defended the republican leadership in congress today.

what I have been trying to tell you is that the republican base agrees with libertarians 80% of the time.

which means the repub leadership can be improved.

but I don't think you want to see a better Republican Party.

you are really working for the democrats and just won't admit it.



I guess when you can't argue with other people say, you find an escape in telling them what they think instead. Same with your made up definitions for socialism and fascism. Somehow I doubt you make it up but just repeat talking points you hear but don't grasp.

[Chris]

It has been explained by isolationists who want to be called non interventionists.

Yea, right, mac, uh huh, anything you say.

[Mac-7]

I guess when you can't argue with other people say, you find an escape in telling them what they think instead. Same with your made up definitions for socialism and fascism. Somehow I doubt you make it up but just repeat talking points you hear but don't grasp.

You think I'm lying when I tell you that the republican base is not the same as the republican leadership?

or that libs like you and Peter really don't want to see the repubs do better?

[Chris]

You think I'm lying when I tell you that the republican base is not the same as the republican leadership?

or that libs like you and Peter really don't want to see the repubs do better?

Where'd I say you're lying, mac? Why do you need to make things up like that?

Here's what I think, you, like many establishment, neocon Republicans, fit what Rand Paul said to a T. You rush to judgment in order to avoid discussing issues. In your case, mac, you just make things up in order to avoid discussing issues.

[Mac-7]

Where'd I say you're lying, mac? Why do you need to make things up like that?

Here's what I think, you, like many establishment, neocon Republicans, fit what Rand Paul said to a T. You rush to judgment in order to avoid discussing issues. In your case, mac, you just make things up in order to avoid discussing issues.

I just make things up?

isnt that another way of saying I lied?

and isn't that your way of answering the point of my alleged lies?

[Peter1469]

I have never defended the republican leadership in congress today.

what I have been trying to tell you is that the republican base agrees with libertarians 80% of the time.

which means the repub leadership can be improved.

but I don't think you want to see a better Republican Party.

you are really working for the democrats and just won't admit it.


OK. You are wrong.

[Captain Obvious]

Looks like Mac wrecked this one too.

Rand Paul is just trying to re-sell himself as an anti-establishment guy to his base. He has a fair amount of damage to control, folks are on to him.

[Mac-7]

OK. You are wrong.

You still cannot answer my point.

[Chris]

I just make things up?

isnt that another way of saying I lied?

and isn't that your way of answering the point of my alleged lies?


Difference is here it's not deliberate, here I don't think you deliberately make things up.

[donttread]

He doesn't consider noninterventionism in this interview...

Rand Paul: ‘Huge Percentage’ Of Washington Elites Are Neoconservatives, Hardly Any Are Realists (http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/23/rand-paul-huge-percentage-of-washington-elites-are-neoconservatives-hardly-any-are-realists/)

What's wrong with that?

[Chris]

What's wrong with that?

Nonintervention? Nothing. His consideration of it? I think I was wrong, he doesn't name it but does describe the noninterventionist position.

[donttread]

Nonintervention? Nothing. His consideration of it? I think I was wrong, he doesn't name it but does describe the noninterventionist position.

I'd prefer total non-interventionism , especially when you consider our miserable track record intervening, but Rand is closer to that than anybody else

[Chris]

I'd prefer total non-interventionism , especially when you consider our miserable track record intervening, but Rand is closer to that than anybody else

Well, noninterventionism demands discussion of but allows for defending our interests from harm. In short, it is defensive and not offensive.