So a Rand Paul America is one where we never engage militarily unless there is an

[RB TexLa]

imminent invasion of America, we do not trade with anyone but ourselves, and politicians set interest rates and monetary policy.

PASS

[sibelian]

1. What are your objections to these three positions?

?

[brooklynite]

2. ...says the person writing on a computer probably made in China.

How many foreign made or foreign grown products are you willing to forego, or pay a significant premium to have no foreign trade?

[CJCRANE]

3. But they don't need to be made in China.

America could make and supply most things without relying on the outside world.

[brooklynite]

4. I repeat my question...

...how much extra are you willing to pay?

And are you willing to give up coffee? coconut? spices?

[CJCRANE]

5. I don't mind paying extra. I often buy things from my local independent bookstore

for example, because I know the money is going back into the local economy.

I'd rather pay a little extra to support good paying jobs at home than support corporations abroad.

[reddread]

9. shouldnt you be asking those hi tech industry leaders why they wont employ Americans?

again, whipping the cart.
i suppose your choices are limited.

[CJCRANE]

14. Also we don't have democratic or regulatory control over corporations in China.

Outsourcing and free trade pacts are taking power away from the people and putting it solely into the hands of corporations.

[reddread]

10. says the person backing the spouse of MFN/NAFTA while pushing for an H1B nation

I must be missing your point completely.

[Lurks Often]

6. So we should withdraw from all of our treaties?

What about those natural resources we need that aren't available to us, either in the quantities we need or not available here at all?

https://www.aei.org/publication/dangerous-dependence-us-increasingly-beholden-to-imported-raw-material/

Whether we like it or not, the United States is part of a global economy and we other countries as much as they need us.

[HughBeaumont]

13. American Enterprise Institute. THERE'S a reputable source.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

The neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol became affiliated with AEI in the late 1960s, after bailing from another organization upon learning that it was CIA-funded. Subsequently AEI took a harder neocon bent, though it also employed the occasional libertarian like Milton Friedman. They became a hotbed of trickle-down economics during the Reagan years.

In the early 1990s, they were embroiled in some controversy when an affiliate of theirs, Charles Murray, published a study purporting to establish IQ as a determinant of socio-economic status, entitled The Bell Curve.

Dubya basically appointed their staff to his cabinet during his administration and AEI churned out a bunch of pro-war propaganda. AEI also caused some Beltway butthurt when they booted David Frum.

They were alleged to have put up a cash offer for scientists to criticize the IPCC report, which never went through.[1] They claim this never happened and the Guardian misrepresented the proposed grant as a bribe.[2] Unlike many conservative think tanks, not all of its members take a hard-line denialist position on global warming — some of its fellows accept the science while others deny it. James Glassman is probably one of their more notorious deniers, having churned out a good deal of material for Tech Central Station, an online magazine known as a denialist platform.[3]

[Lurks Often]

16. My question is a valid one

for the United States to withdraw into it's own borders or refuse to use the military unless the United States was directly attacked would require us to either withdraw from a number of defense related treaties or fail to honor them if something happened to an ally.

And I've never been to the American Enterprise Institute website or recall reading what they have stated.

When you can't discuss the post, attack the poster.

[rgbecker]

7. If America wants a war, I say follow the law as laid out by the constitution.

Let Congress declare it and pay for it.

If you think ISIS is a danger to the USA, site your evidence. Many in America are not convinced, but knowing they won't be involved will just let the capitalists hire their henchmen to kill the bastards keeping them from the oil or the Jews from their "Homeland".

I predict a long wait for Obama before he gets his ISIS war powers resolution. And it is not just the tea party that is torn in two over this issue, but they do have the common bond of a desire for less spending.

Americans are sick of hearing about how they are paying for death and drone destruction, for what? So they can get cheap stuff at Walmart?

[jamzrockz]

8. Rand Paul

supports protectionism? and auditing the FED is not the same as getting congress to set interest rates. But I like the never engage in military strikes unless the there is imminent invasion i.e. the enemy troops have started landing on our shores. I wholeheartedly support the first one.

[99Forever]

11. Huh?

Can't say as I've seen anyone advocating for that asshole here. Could you point that out for us?

Oh, and btw, what the fuck is so wonderful about our monetary policies being in the hands of private banking assholes that answer to no one? That's what has gotten working Americans into a spiral of ever increasing wealth disparity. FUCK THAT!

And a whole bunch LESS control by the MIC ain't such a bad idea either.

[HughBeaumont]

12. "Hey, I'm going to get Democrats to question themselves!"

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

While both Pauls are registered Republicans, both are actually paleolibertarians at heart. However, while the senior Paul continues to identify himself as a libertarian, Rand has expressed the wish that the Tea Party was an actual party so that he could leave the GOP and join them.

However, there is some question about whether Rand Paul shares his father's libertarian views on foreign policy, given that he campaigned in 2010 as a hawk on the War on Terror, in particular calling for Guantanamo detainees to be tried in military tribunals rather than civilian courts, a moratorium on travel visas from so-called "terrorist nations," opposing Constitutional protections for accused foreign terrorists, and supporting construction of military bases on the U.S. border.[4] However Dick Cheney and other neocons still don't trust him and think he is "not one of us," which is enough to have at least some libertarians excitedly foaming about his candidacy.[5] Plus, he thinks the United States is a "Christian nation" and it's the basis of the country's laws.

He has espoused multiple crank conspiracy theories related to the North American Union, such as the NAFTA Superhighway and the Amero.[6]

On the issue of same-sex marriage, Paul takes a states rights approach, personally opposing same-sex marriage but believing that states should decide for themselves on how to approach the issue.[7] He expressed approval for the Supreme Court decision striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act,[8] but also appeared after said ruling on Glenn Beck's show and expressed concern that same-sex marriage would lead to bestiality.[9]

It seems that Rand shares his father's neo-Confederate sympathies. One of his formed aides and close associates is Jack Hunter, a former shock jock who advocates racial pride and supported the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.[10] In addition to that, a Senate candidate from North Carolina whom Rand endorses has ties to the League of the South.[11]

As if all that wasn't enough, Rand, like his father, is for shrinking the federal government's power, is a firm advocate of state rights (as previously noted), and is against the War on Drugs demanding it end. However, In a defining moment of hypocrisy on all those issues, Rand supported a Republican crafted bill that, according to a committee report[12] could be used to force the federal government to crack down, among many other questionable things, on states where marijuana has been legalized.[13]

More of his crank-sympathizing bullshit is at the link. But you knew this, right?

[n2doc]

15. Rand is a huckster telling you what some want to hear

He very clearly backed off of not attacking ISIS when he was called on it. He will step into line if he ever gets the power.

[NobodyHere]

17. Where did Rand Paul state

that we shouldn't want to trade with anyone?

[pampango]

18. Build up those walls, Rand. Spoken like a true conservative. Leave the bridge building to liberals.

Rand, we did not fight Germany because we thought we were in imminent danger of invasion.

[Orsino]

19. No, it isn't.

Rand Paul as a Chief Executive would be led entirely by moneyed interests, just as is any other Republican president. Do not mistake his few Libertarian talking points for principle.