• 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!

Do You Think Obama Unwittingly Gave Some Momentum to Rand Paul's Aspirations?

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
30,380
Reaction score
17,887
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The complications and confusions associated with the United States' intervention in Syria have lowered the President's profile as a leader and in foreign affairs. Given that one of the most outspoken critics of United States foreign policy is Rand Paul, and Rand Paul clearly is a rising star in the opposition Party (and is a popular name for the 2016 election), has Obama allowed Rand Paul to become the leader of a possibly-new consensus foreign policy impulse?
 
With the majority of Americans against the use of American force in Syria, and Rand Paul leading that charge, I see him being the Republican Presidential nominee and perhaps making a successful run for the White House. (If only his father could of reached it. . )

We don't want another war, almost the same way the Iraq war started as well. . .

So yes, He is leading a foreign policy charge, but the idea is not anything new, just forgotten by our government in their sense of all reaching control.

 

Tough to tell. The American people are almost impossible to read when it comes to libertarians, as we saw in 2008.

Personally, in my opinion, I do believe Rand's actions can only help him when it comes to foreign policy. As polls are starting to show, many Americans are fed up with the back and forth claptrap between the Republocrats when it comes to these issues...
 

If anything, Rand rising up ensures Hillary will win. The GOP establishment will never allow an isolationist peacenik to win, especially one against the Fed that Wall Street has been so reliant on for growth. The GOP will have ANOTHER brutal primary election, letting Hillary coast to victory. Don't want this? Get a better candidate. And fast.
 
One issue, even as big as Foreign Policy, does not a President or Party Nominee make. It can kill a candidacy, but there has to be more breadth and depth to get the nomination, much less win the general election.
 

It will depend on how this turns out.
 
Rand Paul will be irrelevant right now. The lame stream media is going to get busy telling the people their awesome leader (our loser human in the white house) has done the impossible and will most certainly join Putin in receiving another poorly earned Nobel peace prize.
 

It is sad...

The MSM is so detrimental when it comes to third party candidates. I remember what happened to Ron Paul several times in his campaign and it still irks me to this day. The two sides (Fox vs Most everyone else) are so devout to putting down the other side that they either leave the third party'ers in the dust or attack them with the usual B.S. rhetoric we see from most anti-libertarians.

I seriously hope the Libertarians receive a mainstream breakthrough in the coming years. I doubt most of America even knows what they stand for.
 
Beaudreaux said:
One issue, even as big as Foreign Policy, does not a President or Party Nominee make. It can kill a candidacy, but there has to be more breadth and depth to get the nomination, much less win the general election.
Click to expand...

I don't think so either. I think that it will give Rand momentum, but his entire domestic policy will be a source of contention with moderates, liberals, and somewhat with conservatives. His overall foreign policy may be complicated with portions of the hawkish GOP, and with the humanitarians that are part of the Democratic Party.

I do think he could become the face of a pretty important strand of foreign policy thought. I thought Obama hit a sweet-spot with selective and somewhat restricted intervention and the most infamous use of overthrow and nation-building of the previous administration. Both parties largely were in favor of that approach, including Romney. Then this most recent attack with Syria came to our attentions.
 
Rand Paul doesn't have a chance. He's damaged goods.
 

I agree with that Paul would be a gift for Clinton. I disagree on the reason why. If Paul was able to get the nomination it would be a landslide election for the Democrats. Not only would Clinton or whichever Democrat who emerges win, but we would also have a veto proof Senate and the House would revert to Democratic control.

Republicans could find themselves wondering in the dessert for 40 years.
 

You might want to walk it back though. Goldwater wasn't a blessing for Republicans, but the canard was 64 led to 80. Somehow that ignores Nixon and Ford, but hey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…