Obama Wars
See other Obama Wars Articles
Title: I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.
Source:
The Huffington Post
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-g ... ral-democrat-im_b_6169542.html
Published: Nov 17, 2014
Author: H. A. Goodman
Post Date: 2014-11-17 10:57:06 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 69830
Comments: 113
The editor of Breitbart Unmasked, a site that I enjoy immensely and find informative, recently told me that supporting Rand Paul disqualifies a person from being labeled a progressive. My rebuttal was that he might be right. However, I also mentioned that Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia agreed with my latest Congress Blog piece. In the article, I explain why Rand Paul is correct in questioning the legality of President Obama's troop deployments. Sadly, people at UC Berkeley are more interested in protesting Bill Maher than condemning a conflict George McGovern stated weakens our country in the same manner as Vietnam. Hundreds of airstrikes, over 3,000 soldiers deployed, and a request for $5.6 billion is a war, folks. Had President Mitt Romney just doubled our military presence in the Middle East and launched airstrikes that even the Kurds and the Free Syrian Army have criticized, the reaction would have been entirely different from liberals throughout the country. We once again have over 3,000 American boots on the ground in Iraq (without a peep from the anti-war left), only months after a VA crisis that caused veterans to die as they waited for health care, and about the same time as the publication of this book by an American general. To make matters worse, Congress is too cowardly to even debate the issue, despite calls for a discussion by Rand Paul. In the meantime, our values as a nation have succumb to fear mongering and paranoia. Since 9/11, we've had to endure ideologues like Sean Hannity, a man who vehemently defends enhanced interrogation, yet is too chicken (insert the next word) to get waterboarded himself; even after promising on television that he would do so for charity. To prove that waterboaring is indeed torture, Christopher Hitchens actually did get waterboarded, yet the thought of nearly drowning apparently terrifies Fox's tough, football throwing host. Even petitions calling for Hannity to back up the bravado, or the fact that such interrogation methods endanger U.S. soldiers and besmirch our value system, haven't been enough to alter the conservative view of this un-American tool of statecraft. Alas, only Selsun Blue and unicorn tears, not water being poured onto his smug face wrapped in cloth and gasping for oxygen, will ever grace the Fred Flinstone-like visage of Sean Hannity. In contrast, Rand Paul has called for the GOP to reject Dick Cheney for defending torture and asserted that Cheney helped launch the Iraq War to profit Halliburton. Only Rand Paul provides a voice for people disgusted by the fear peddlers on Fox, the tepid rebuttals to their madness by leading liberals like Hillary Clinton, and the media driven paranoia that shapes public policy. Today, over 40 percent of Americans favor ground troops in Iraq, just several years removed from the end of a deadly counterinsurgency war. Upholding Obamacare is important, but pales in comparison to the prospect of perpetual American military involvement in the Middle East or the destruction of our value system because of terrorism. Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin's love child. I'm for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I've written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I'm against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I'm for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator "Green Eggs and Ham" on climate change. Finally, I've also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery. On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn't Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described "moderate" on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul's recent Bill Maher interview shows he's open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn't abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but in 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will be my choice for president. On issues that affect the long-term survival of this country; grandiose concerns like perpetual war that could send generations of Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East, domestic spying that could eventually lead to a police state, and numerous other topics, Rand Paul has shown that he bucks both the Republican and Democratic penchant for succumbing to public opinion, an overreaction to the terror threat, and a gross indifference to an egregious assault on our rights as citizens. Yes, I'll have to concede some of my beliefs and roll the dice as to whether or not he'll flip-flop on issues, but Hillary Clinton and President Obama have changed their views on everything from gay marriage to marijuana legalization and Iraq, so I'm taking an educated gamble with Sen. Paul. Hillary Clinton alone has gone back and forth on enough issues to make the former Secretary of State a human version of Pong, so I'm not too worried about voting for Paul. Below are ten reasons this Democrat is voting for Rand Paul in 2016 and if my liberal membership card is revoked, I'll live with that; I'm not an ideologue like Sean Hannity, I'm an American. 1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Sen. Paul has called Obama's ISIS war illegal and isn't against defending American interests through military intervention, but stresses the importance of Congress making these decisions. Hillary Clinton, in contrast, thinks we should have armed the Syrian rebel groups several years ago. Try naming even one of the Syrian rebel groups and explaining their differences with ISIS. Furthermore, The Week states that "Clinton's instincts appear to be far more hawkish than Barack Obama's." Imagine a more hawkish Obama and you'll get the next President Clinton. Also, famed neocon Robert Kagan is one of Clinton's advisers and states in The New York Times, "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy." That should tell you how liberal Clinton will be on matters of perpetual war in the Middle East. 2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as "one of the foremost critics of the government's domestic spying program." In early 2014, Sen. Paul filed a lawsuit against the NSA over domestic spying. Neither Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, nor any other candidate in 2016 has made this a top priority in their campaign. Sen. Paul has also voted against PATRIOT Act Extension bills, voted for an amendment that prohibits detention of U.S. citizens without trial (which of course didn't pass the Senate), and his voting record protects American citizens from politicians paranoid over terrorism. Sen. Paul was vehemently against the NDAA Indefinite Detention Bill that passed in 2013, because, "This bill takes away that right and says that if someone thinks you're dangerous, we will hold you without a trial. It's an abomination." 3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Corey Booker to reform the criminal justice system. Their bill would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans who've been adversely affected by non-violent criminal sentences. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush don't care about reforming the criminal justice system, and if they do, it's on the bottom of their to do lists, far behind cozying up to Wall Street and increasing America's military presence in the Middle East. 4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret" in 2016. I don't see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she'd be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator. Also, Paul is one of the few Republicans who's addressed the GOP's love affair with corporations, stating that, "We cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street...corporate welfare should once and for all be ended." 5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent "a few years" in prison. No other candidate in 2016 would dare take that position. The Wall Street Journal criticized Paul's position on the Snowden matter, and their criticism actually makes me like Rand Paul in 2016 even more. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is "puzzled" why Snowden would want to leave the U.S. and feels he might have helped terrorists with his disclosures. 6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I'm not making this up. I don't want to get blown up eating a burrito at Chipotle because I visited Egypt to see the pyramids and happened to sit in a café frequented by a terrorist. In 2013, Rand Paul asked Eric Holder whether or not American citizens could be targeted by drones on American soil. Jon Stewart has a great segment about this. Eric Holder actually answered that theoretically, yes, drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil could be viewed as legal, depending on the circumstance. If this doesn't frighten you, then vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, since neither one cares about this matter. Issues like drone strikes on American soil, against Americans, is why I don't believe in conspiracy theories. This sort of thing is being discussed today in plain sight, yet only Rand Paul and a few others have shown outrage over the potential of our government to possibly target its own citizens. If it's not an ISIL beheading video, nobody seems to care nowadays. 7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another. This alone would solve some of the gridlock in Washington. Paul has worked with 7 leading Democrats on a number of issues; working on everything from judicial reform, NSA surveillance, the limits of presidential authority to launch strikes in Iraq, and other issues. Imagine Ted Cruz reaching out to Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell having lunch with Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul, on the other hand, has worked to emulate this picture. 8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others. He doesn't want to dismantle Social Security. I do disagree with his view of the SNAP Program and certain other issues. However, Paul has stated, "I'm for a social safety net, but it should be minimized to helping those who can't help themselves." I don't ever recall Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan making that type of statement and mainstream Republicans do everything in their power to promote the view that safety nets equate to communism or socialism. 9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul. They like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush a lot more, and The Weekly Standard, National Review, and others have voiced their reservations about a Rand Paul presidency. If neocons disagree with you, then you must be doing something right. 10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation. We're stuck with a GOP who thinks the globe is one giant Stratego board game with God helping roll the dice, a Democratic Party more focused on defending Obamacare than stopping endless wars or protecting civil liberties, and a populace that cares more about beheading videos than the erosion of rights or the welfare of our warriors. Is Paul the answer? I'm not certain. But compared to Hillary and Jeb Bush, I'll take the man who stated, "I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East." If Rand Paul picks Mike Huckabee as his running mate, I'll "evolve" towards Hillary. However, if Rand Paul picks someone reasonable who possesses his value system, I'll take my chances. President Rand Paul will be a nice change from Bush 2.0, Bush in a pantsuit, and especially Bush's brother. In 2016, I want someone who can protect us from ourselves and protect us from the media/terrorist driven fear that keeps America in endless war and allows attorney generals to rationalize a drone strike on American soil. Paul was also the first 2016 contender to visit Ferguson, and for some reason I just can't imagine Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush taking a moment to find out why Ferguson took place, and what steps are needed to solve that intractable situation.
Poster Comment: The author explains why, if you're not a Rand Paul supporter, you're working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton? Take your time, you've still got about 2 years to decide.
Mark Wilson via Getty Images
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 101.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
The author is wrong, then. I support neither.
Enjoy your president Hillary.
What difference does it make? Vote for Republicans, and you get what we have. Vote for Democrats, and you get what we have. The only difference I can see is that the Democrats are honest about it: they say they're going to enact this crap, and they do. Republicans are dishonest: they say they're against this crap, but then they vote for it, enable it, and don't use their power to strike it down. Democrats are straightforwardly bad. Republicans are deviously bad. But bad is bad either way. It's time for a new party.
Isn't that what Hillary said about Bengazi? Yes, Republicans and Democrats are equally bad. The secret of their success is consistently evil candidates. "Never give a sucker an even break" ~PT Barnum
For abortion is the same as against it. For higher taxes is the same is against higher taxes being for obamacare is the same as being against it. Hondo is the same as Hillary
For higher taxes is the same is against higher taxes being for obamacare is the same as being against it. I actual practice, the Republican Party GAVE US abortion and has continually upheld it and expanded it since 1973. They merely LIE about being against it, in order to dupe rubes into voting for them. They've always had the power to end it. They have no intention of doing so. To be a Republican is to IN FACT be pro-abortion, but to pretend that one is against it. It is to either be a liar, or to be a dupe, nothing more. Republicans are for low taxes on the super rich, but maintaining the full tax regime on the middle class. That's what they've always done. They favor their Alphas. They preach a low-tax game, but the taxes they lower are not the taxes that affect working people, but the taxes that primarily affect the upper classes. When the Republicans throw a sop to the general public on taxes, they do so with massive deficit spending, giving a tax break, temporarily, and charging it to the nation's credit card. Once again, they're liars, and the people who really think that Republicans are for lower taxes on THEM are dupes. We need universal health insurance. Obamacare is a crappy way to do it, but the Republicans offer nothing constructive at all other than the desire to kill it and leave millions without health coverage at all, other than the sort of "quality" emergency room care that sent a guy with Ebola home on the bus with the instructions to take Tylenol, because he had no insurance. The Republicans are children who refuse to address the need and who have tantrums instead. That is why Obamacare, bad as it is, will survive. We need universal health insurance, and the Republicans will not come to the table. So we end up with the crappy product that the Democrats offer. The only reason it survives is because the rich elites, including Republicans, will make money off it. And so John Roberts is up there to make sure that it survives, and it will. People who vote Republican see the Democrats as evil, but do not see how utterly corrupt and despicable their own party is. They are willfully blind to it. Which is why they pretend that the party that GAVE US abortion and continues to uphold it is "pro-life" - what a joke!
Are you saying we need socialism?
Are you saying we need socialism? Straw Man The American system of Healthcare for Profit has been a failure of epic proportions. Too much profit for insurance companies, healthcare mega networks, and drug companies. The demand for healthcare is a highly inefficient market. The vast majority access healthcare only when absolutely necessary, and without a competitive marketplace in which to "shop". Universal Healthcare is the only solution. No American (in the richest, greatest nation in the history of the world) should ever be forced into bankruptcy or financial ruin because of illness, accident, or disease. Citing a couple sources for your enjoyment. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/10/united-states-health-outcomes-far-worse-than-other- comparable-nations/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to- 10-other-countries/
Does that mean you are going to help out? Or are you just going to suck on the .... What services are you going to provide to your fellow man?
Of course, I'll happily pay my share to make sure that ALL Americans have access to top quality health care. What services are you going to provide to your fellow man? From a medical perspective, unfortunately, I have no training...but I am willing to volunteer in other ways. What about you?
What about non-American, illegal aliens? Let em die in the gutter, or will you help deport them to medical care?
An entirely separate issue. The lack of a meaningful immigration policy overhaul makes this very difficult. Deportation is simply impossible. Turning the sick away to suffer is inhuman. The solution is committing the political will and the financial resources necessary to manage immigration. Of course, these folks are already receiving care, and often paying for services too.
We don't need immigration overhaul we just need those in charge to enforce laws already in existence. BTW why are all of those illegals leaving their countries to come here when they should be staying in their countries and trying to make their countries better? Wouldn't that be the easiest thing for them to do and the best for all countries involved?
As a first step, perhaps - why are all of those illegals leaving their countries to come here when they should be staying in their countries and trying to make their countries better? I guess you should ask them..
True, and then build the fence and get rid of the anchor baby law. Problem solved. If you can't follow the rules and come here legally then you don't need to be here, simple aint it?
"Build the fence" HA! you're such a piece of work! there will never be a fence
If you have one around your sanitarium compound, then why not the border?
There should be a fence, absolutely. My point is simply that it will never happen.
One high enough that it might keep out snails? My point is simply that it will never happen. Why not in your opinion? Especially IF your Fuehrer's unconstitutional EO is allowed to stand? Didn't he promise to "increase security" at the border? Oh, never mind -- that means adding Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder to run it.
"border security" has been an issue since the Reagan administration. We've been treated to gop controlled congress and dem controlled congress... We've had republican and democrat presidents.... 24+ years and no meaningful change to our country's "border security" Clearly there are more powerful people who benefit from an open border than there are powerful people who would benefit from a closed border. It's that simple. IMHO ...Didn't he promise to "increase security" at the border?... Yes! and gwb promised a fence.......
We've been treated to gop controlled congress and dem controlled congress... We've had republican and democrat presidents.... 24+ years and no meaningful change to our country's "border security" Yes, it's true the border has always been an issue. BUT...Only B. Hoosane has changed the RoE of the BP not to "DO NOTHING." None of the other Presidents did "NOTHING." A fence was needed, but at least during the other Presidents' admins the BP could still arrest, fire at, or prevent intrusion. Clearly there are more powerful people who benefit from an open border than there are powerful people who would benefit from a closed border. It's that simple. IMHO. Yes. The beneficiaries are: 1) The Dem Party Those for whom this is a LOSE-LOSE: 1) The GOP
Yes. The beneficiaries are: 1) The Dem Party The parties on lines 2-5 bought the last election with $4 Billion.....
Yes, but in the Dems' case, their investment buys 40 million new Dem voters. The GOP support is led by the Rockefeller RINO-globalists of their party. At least 75% of the GOP are conservatives who OPPOSE the Mexican invasion and violation of the USCON and national sovereignty... The question is why YOU support the Mexican invasion? How do you and yours benefit? In fact, how has 0buma made America a better place in your opinion -- seriously??
40 Million? Please show your work. The question is why YOU support the Mexican invasion? How do you and yours benefit? The "mexican invasion" took place many years ago. There has never been any serious effort on the part of "our government" to stop, or even slow it. I don't support it, but what can I do about it? "Immigration" isn't even on my top ten list of issues I care about. I don't benefit, but like the vast majority of Americans, I am not harmed by it either. OK - So...President Obama issues an EO that allows people who are already here, and have been for some time, who work and spend money in their community, and raise their kids, and want a normal life, to stay without the threat of a middle of the night raid and deportation. OK by me, doesn't cost me a dime, doesn't affect my life at all, and maybe adds a few more tax- payers to the general population. I don't feel the least bit threatened by "immigrants" - and I'm glad that these folks want to become Americans. ... how has 0boma made America a better place in your opinion -- seriously?? I doubt that your question is serious, but I'll answer it anyway. Here are things that I feel strongly about, and have been supported by President Obama - 1. War in the ME - I am against war. I am especially against the wealth transfer that masquerades as war in the ME. (please pardon my language) Fuck the Iraqis, fuck the Afghans, fuck the Israelis, the Palestinians, the house of saud, the oil industry, and the military industrial complex. President Obama has at least not waged more war. 2. Banking regulation - Gramm–Leach–Bliley - and the de-regulatory legislation that preceded it almost crashed the global economy to benefit the ultra-rich banking cabal. president Obama has supported renewed banking regulation that might prevent future melt-downs. 3. Health Care - I believe (100% completely) that in the richest, most productive, most prosperous, most innovative country in the world, no AMERICAN should ever have to face financial ruin because a family member is sick, injured, or afflicted. The President's ACA took a step toward assuring health security. Disagree if you wish, it won't change my mind. I'm in favor of doing what benefits Americans first.
Then why isn't imigratoin one of your issues you see as important. Oh yeah it wont "cost you a dime". In the meantime your fellow countrymen you claim to care so much about are going to have to pay more welfare for these forcing invaders. There are studies that these new "immigrants" use more welfare then the general population. Also your fellow Americans will see their wages driven down by wetbacks that will work below what it costs to to hire a REAL American. No you don't care about Americans. You care about it not costing you "dime". Or at least you think it wont. But you are to ignorant to see that it will.
#102. To: A K A Stone (#101)
Please cite your source. A different opinion: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/1122/What-Obama-immigration-plan- means-for-US-economy
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe author explains why, if you're not a Rand Paul supporter, you're working for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
#2. To: Vicomte13, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#1)
#8. To: hondo68 (#2)
Enjoy your president Hillary.
#16. To: Vicomte13, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#8)
What difference does it make?
#17. To: hondo68 (#16)
Yes, Republicans and Democrats are equally bad.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#17)
For abortion is the same as against it.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
We need universal health insurance.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#21)
We need universal health insurance.
#26. To: Jameson (#25)
Universal Healthcare is the only solution.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#26)
Does that mean you are going to help out?
#34. To: Jameson, *Border Invasion* (#28)
I'll happily pay my share to make sure that ALL Americans have access to top quality health care.
#35. To: hondo68 (#34)
What about non-American, illegal aliens?
#49. To: Jameson (#35)
The lack of a meaningful immigration policy overhaul makes this very difficult.
#52. To: CZ82 (#49)
We don't need immigration overhaul we just need those in charge to enforce laws already in existence.
#61. To: Jameson (#52)
As a first step, perhaps -
#65. To: CZ82 (#61)
True, and then build the fence and get rid of the anchor baby law. Problem solved.
#67. To: Jameson, CZ82 (#65)
"Build the fence" HA! you're such a piece of work! there will never be a fence
#75. To: Liberator, CZ82 (#67)
...then why not the border?
#79. To: Jameson (#75)
There should be a fence, absolutely.
#81. To: Liberator (#79)
Why not in your opinion?
#84. To: Jameson (#81)
"border security" has been an issue since the Reagan administration.
2) Globalist-run business
3) Mexico and Third World riff-raff
4) The Elite Globalist-Firsters
5) Subversive haters of the USA
2) ALL citizens and classes of America's economic strata (except "rich" globalists)
3) The US Constitution
4) The USA
#87. To: Liberator (#84)
Let me fix this for you..
2) Globalist-run business
3) Mexico and Third World riff-raff
4) The Elite Globalist-Firsters
5) Subversive haters of the USA
6) The GOP
#91. To: Jameson (#87)
(Edited)
The parties on lines 2-5 bought the last election with $4 Billion.....
#99. To: Liberator (#91)
Yes, but in the Dems' case, their investment buys 40 million new Dem voters.
#101. To: Jameson (#99)
Disagree if you wish, it won't change my mind. I'm in favor of doing what benefits Americans first.
Replies to Comment # 101. There are studies that these new "immigrants" use more welfare then the general population.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 101.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]