Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

[Buzzrock 15118]

1. Russia or any foreign nation attempting to influence elections is a problem.  I do appreciate it as a real problem.  I don't elevate it to the level of the greatest existential threat to democracy like some of the more rabid members of this forum, however.  The FF understood the nature of the issue involving truth, propaganda and censorship.  The first amendment was well considered.  I'm not scared of propaganda.  I'm scared of the lack of critical thinking skills in our population.  But that's not something the government is going to be able to fix.  We need a cultural change in how we value education, critical thinking skills and classical rhetoric/debate.
2. I characterized your obsession with Russia as derangement because the issue has clearly clouded your judgement on just about every political issue of the day.  You are the Brady Bunch's Jan complaining about Marsha, Marsha, Marsha only it's Russia, Russia, Russia.

Agreed with #1. But the biggest existential threat to democracy is plastic straws.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/euan-macdonald-ukraines-friend-and-foe-of-the-week.html

Ukraine’s Foe of the Week: Rand Paul

Russia invaded and occupied parts of Georgia in August 2008: Fact.

Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine’s Crimea in February-March 2014: Fact.

Russia has sent troops, weapons, ammunition and equipment into the Donbas and fomented a war there: Fact.

Russia has encouraged and supported the rise of right wing populism in the West: Fact.

Russia has interfered in referendums and elections in the West via social media, spreading fake news, setting up fake websites to foster divisions in the electorate, hacking websites to steal information: Fact.

Russian hacking groups have been accused of launching cyberattacks in Estonia, France, and Ukraine, and are believed by U.S. intelligence to be preparing such attacks against the United States: Fact.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul went to Moscow on Aug. 6 to meet with members of Russia’s rubber-stamp legislature and other senior Kremlin officials to promote “dialogue” between the United States and Russia: Fact.

Wait. What?

Why on earth is a U.S. senator going on a one-man mission to fix U.S.-Russian relations after U.S. intelligence has warned that not only did the Kremlin interfere in the U.S. presidential elections in 2018, but that it is also preparing to interfere in the U.S. mid-term elections in November?

The answer is that Paul, a Republican representing Kentucky, is not a man of principle, but a political hack who puts his career before his country. In 2014, after the Kremlin started its military occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea, Paul wrote that the United States should isolate Russia “if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.”

But by 2017 Paul had abandoned this position, even though the Kremlin has not ended its occupation of Crimea, nor halted its war on Ukraine in the Donbas.

In the interim it has intervened in Syria, aiding its murderous client dictator Bashar al-Assad in carrying out barbaric attacks on his country’s civilian population, including the use of chemical weapons.

It has also deployed a chemical weapon in the UK, in a botched assassination attempt on of former Russian spy that resulted in the death of a British woman, the authorities there say. On top of that, the Kremlin has continued its attempts to influence votes in the West and is honing its skills in cyber warfare, according to the intelligence services of several countries.

The Kremlin is delighted to host Paul, and broadcast his calls for dialogue and the easing of sanctions on Russia. Kremlin officials also took the opportunity to ask Paul to intervene on behalf of a jailed Russian suspected spy, Maria Butina. And Paul’s mere presence in Moscow counters the impression that the Kremlin is isolated and shunned by the civilized world.

The reason Paul has flipped his position on Russia 180 degrees is that U.S. President Donald J. Trump is in office. Trump, of course, appears to be a firm supporter of Russia and an admirer of the sinister Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin. So Paul, as a craven toady, has since taken up position as Trump’s “wingman on Russia,” as the New York Times puts it.

Thus, the senator was only one of two to vote against the extension of sanctions against Russia in June 2017 (the other was Bernie Sanders). Paul also blocked a resolution drawn up by Sanders that would have backed the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian election interference and demanded President Trump  speak with special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with the Kremlin during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Paul is Ukraine’s Foe of the Week and a winner of the Order of Lenin for his unwarranted friendless to Ukraine’s Kremlin enemies.

He represents everything that’s wrong with Western politics at this time: politicians putting partisanship ahead of principle, whilst pandering to populism.

The political malaise that is affecting the democratic world at this moment will not ease until the malign influence of the Kremlin is countered.

The voting public in the United States could help reduce that influence by throwing Paul and his ilk out of office at the next available opportunity: Fact.

 

[bernorange 8385]

Sen. Paul got his victory over Brennan after all.  Brennan's security clearance is being revoked.

 

[Washpark 176]

24 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Sen. Paul got his victory over Brennan after all.  Brennan's security clearance is being revoked.

 

Is this really the hill that you want to defend?

[bernorange 8385]

What do you mean?

[Anastasis 23703]

28 minutes ago, bernorange said:

What do you mean?

He thinks that you should not cheer lead the security revocation of a guy who endorsed torture and rendition, policies that promoted mass surveillance of Americans, lied about droning civilians and a variety of other CIA and military activities, and spied on a Senate oversight committee because Trump's motivation is in part his narcissistic political impulse to punish people who say not nice things about him.

I do think that you have to give some credit to Rand. He knew how to position the issue so that it would resonate with Trump.  "This guy is monetizing his security clearance and using the credibility it affords him to bullhorn mean things about you. You should revoke it."

[jimmyjazz 46986]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

He thinks that you should not cheer lead the security revocation of a guy who endorsed torture and rendition, policies that promoted mass surveillance of Americans, lied about droning civilians and a variety of other CIA and military activities, and spied on a Senate oversight committee because Trump's motivation is in part his narcissistic political impulse to punish people who say not nice things about him.

I do think that you have to give some credit to Rand. He knew how to position the issue so that it would resonate with Trump.  "This guy is monetizing his security clearance and using the credibility it affords him to bullhorn mean things about you. You should revoke it."

Trump scorecard:

 

endorses torture     +1

mass surveillance of Americans     +1

lies about droning civilians     +1

spies on a Senate oversight committee     +1

says mean things     -1

 

+3, let's fire him anyway because "mean things"

[Washpark 176]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

He thinks that you should not cheer lead the security revocation of a guy who endorsed torture and rendition, policies that promoted mass surveillance of Americans, lied about droning civilians and a variety of other CIA and military activities, and spied on a Senate oversight committee because Trump's motivation is in part his narcissistic political impulse to punish people who say not nice things about him.

I do think that you have to give some credit to Rand. He knew how to position the issue so that it would resonate with Trump.  "This guy is monetizing his security clearance and using the credibility it affords him to bullhorn mean things about you. You should revoke it."

It is the reason Brennan's security clearance was revoked which is to silence critics which is antithetical to Rand's supposed Libertarian beliefs.

[Js1 86965]

So Trump should have revoked the clearance because Brennan endorsed torture, but Trump also picked Haspel to run the CIA?

What?

[Anastasis 23703]

28 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Brennan...Haspel

Who are two people that Rand Paul voted against for confirmation to lead the CIA?

 

I'll take "Spooky Stories" for $1,000 Alex.

[bernorange 8385]

1 hour ago, Washpark said:

It is the reason Brennan's security clearance was revoked which is to silence critics which is antithetical to Rand's supposed Libertarian beliefs.

Rand was advocating for Brennan's firing long before Trump was elected.  Your statement begins with a false premise.  Reality has more nuance than the narrative being pushed in the OP.

[Huckleberry 34407]

21 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Rand was advocating for Brennan's firing long before Trump was elected.  Your statement begins with a false premise.  Reality has more nuance than the narrative being pushed in the OP.

Washpark was saying that's why Trump revoked it, not why Paul asked for it to be revoked.

The point being that a true libertarian's spidey-sense would go off when he realized that he was using an authoritarian's wish to squelch dissent in a free society in order to effect one of his preexisting goals. The very best that can be said about Paul in this situation is that he's lying down with dogs.

[Anastasis 23703]

23 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The very best that can be said about Paul in this situation is that he's lying down with dogs.

AKA he's playing DC politician to effect the ends that align to his preferred political outcomes.  Ron got hammered for not being pragmatic. Rand gets hammered for being politically pragmatic.  I actually think that aligning as closely as he has with Trump will be to his longer term political detriment, but anything the Pauls do is going to find a long line of critics cause they threaten the status quo. 

[Huckleberry 34407]

23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

AKA he's playing DC politician to effect the ends that align to his preferred political outcomes.  Ron got hammered for not being pragmatic. Rand gets hammered for being politically pragmatic.  I actually think that aligning as closely as he has with Trump will be to his longer term political detriment, but anything the Pauls do is going to find a long line of critics cause they threaten the status quo. 

I think they've both been hammered for plenty of reasons, but your argument has some merit.

Regardless, in this case a simple cost benefit analysis should have caused Paul to reevaluate. For the benefit of making himself feel better (but not actually changing the level of information Brennan was getting because there's no way Brennan was being asked to advice the Trump administration) Paul lobbied for an authoritarian narcissist to buck established precedent on national security matters because a dissenter was being mean. That's extremely bad calculus on Paul's part.

[Huckleberry 34407]

Oops, forgot to add that the reason this is bad is that if we take Paul at his word and that his real wish was for Brennan to have his clearance revoked because of the illegal and unconstitutional things that he approved and authorized during his time as Director of the CIA, he should actually want Brennan not to have his security clearance revoked by Trump right now. This action has not set a precedent for all former employees to have their clearance revoked or even a precedent for those who oversaw and authorized illegal activities to have it revoked. The only thing that future elected politicians will remember is that Trump did it because Brennan was mean to him. This doesn't set a precedent for good, it sets one for bad.

And Rand Paul made it happen.

[SpiralOut 1954]

From the man himself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/the-us-must-engage-with-russia/567646/

The U.S. Must Engage With Russia

Real dialogue is necessary for nuclear-arms reduction.

Rand Paul

Aug 15, 2018

 

On my recent trip to Russia, I spent an hour with Mikhail Gorbachev. I told him that in the West we are grateful that he and President Ronald Reagan defied Cold War orthodoxy to significantly reduce our countries’ nuclear arms. And I asked him whether there was a moment in his life when he’d realized that he might shape history.

He paused a moment and then recounted how as a young man, he had watched a film on the devastation that would occur with nuclear war. He and the other young officials in the room looked at each other in shock as the film concluded.

 

Gorbachev recalled the scene: “Even though I am not a believer, I responded, ‘Oh my God!’” From that moment, Gorbachev said, he decided to use every opportunity that came his way to prevent a nuclear holocaust.

Gorbachev’s youthful concern about nuclear disaster became apparent when he assumed leadership of the Soviet Union. In a speech he gave to senior personnel of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in May 1986, Gorbachev said, “Peace is the value above anything. In the nuclear-cum-space era a world war is the absolute evil. It cannot be won...”

I asked Gorbachev about meeting Reagan for the first time. He said that their first meeting was affable but inconclusive. Press reports from the Reagan camp revealed that Reagan thought Gorbachev was just an old-school Bolshevik. Gorbachev remembered his response when his aides asked whether Reagan was just a hard-line anti-communist. Gorbachev chuckled and said, “No, he is a dinosaur!”

But both men persisted. Despite the Cold War atmosphere, rampant mistrust, and fearmongering on both sides, the leaders engaged each other. Ultimately, multiple agreements were hammered out, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the START treaty. Over a four-year period, the former eliminated nearly 2,700 missiles.

 

Over the years, though, agreements with Russia to reduce nuclear arms have not followed a straight path of success. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush announced his intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by announcing that the INF Treaty might no longer be in Russia’s interests. Russia had ratified START II in 2000 but pulled out of the treaty after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

Most recently, New START took effect in 2011. In addition to placing a cap of 1,550 on deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a nearly three-quarters drop from START, New START also cut in half the allowable number of strategic nuclear-delivery vehicles, such as missile launchers and heavy bombers.

New START expires in 2021. If either side allows it to simply sunset, it will be the first time in several decades that a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia lapses.

As our hour was coming to an end, I asked Gorbachev whether he had any words of wisdom to improve our current dialogue. “Bring the conversation back to nuclear-arms reductions,” he said. “Encourage both sides to restart talk of renewing the START and INF treaties.”

 

That echoed his public call last year:

If the INF treaty could be saved, it would be a powerful signal for the whole world that the biggest nuclear powers understand their responsibility and take their obligations seriously.

Gorbachev argued then, as he did in our meeting, for a summit between President Donald Trump and Putin to discuss nuclear-arms control.

In my meetings with the Foreign Affairs Committees in Russia’s upper house, the Federation Council, and lower house, the State Duma, legislators also expressed an interest in holding formal talks to renew New START and continue the INF Treaty. I have invited members of both Foreign Affairs Committees to Congress this fall to continue these discussions. It is my hope that Democrats who have previously been supportive of nuclear-arms reductions will join in these meetings.

On the long flight home from Russia, as I was reading Eric Metaxas’s book Martin Luther, I realized that great challenges to orthodoxy are rare, but necessary at times to right great wrongs or prevent great tragedy. I, for one, am thankful that Reagan and Gorbachev defied orthodoxy to cut stockpiles of nuclear weapons and reduce the tension between our countries. I hope thoughtful minds will prevail in our current standoff with Russia, and embrace the dialogue necessary to further reduce the potential for the terrible, world-altering catastrophe that a war between nuclear powers could bring.

The day after my meeting with Gorbachev, I visited Bunker 42, built by Stalin to survive a direct nuclear hit on Moscow. Each day, 600 people secretly descended about 180 feet below the streets of Moscow to a bunker protected by 10-foot-thick concrete. In the bunker, I watched a video recounting the nuclear-arms race, which culminated in Russia exploding a 50-megaton hydrogen bomb aboveground that destroyed everything within more than a dozen miles, with effects that could be felt and seen for hundreds of miles more. Likewise, in America, we built an elaborate bunker deep in the mountain adjacent to the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia. Today, thanks to Reagan and Gorbachev—two leaders brave enough to engage in dialogue—these bunkers are decommissioned and open to tourists.

My goal in visiting both government and opposition leaders in Russia is to promote dialogue. My hope on my return to Congress is that I will find bipartisan support for improved dialogue and continued progress on reducing nuclear arms.

 

That dadgum Rand!  Using nuclear disarmament as a cover for secretly doing Putin's bidding!  In the words of Hugo:  TRAITOR!

 

 

 

 

[Washpark 176]

14 hours ago, bernorange said:

Rand was advocating for Brennan's firing long before Trump was elected.  Your statement begins with a false premise.  Reality has more nuance than the narrative being pushed in the OP.

Mental gymnastics to justify Rand's support of a President who has no qualms shitting all over the constitution. Again, shows it is party over principles despite all their prior grandstanding 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Washpark

[bernorange 8385]

19 minutes ago, Washpark said:

Mental gymnastics to justify Rand's support of a President ...

You seem to have issues with reading comprehension.  I'm not "justifying Rand's support of a President".  It's been my contention all along that Rand is pursuing his own agenda.  To the extent that he's been able to leverage Trump's support for some of his goals, some folks are happy to push a narrative demonizing Sen. Paul.  That's par for the course in today's TDS flavored political theater, but it's not completely honest.

[wildcat09 29562]

I'm just gonna co-sign everything in Huck's last couple of posts. Rand could have had good reasons for wanting Brennan fired when Brennan had the job. He could have thought with good reason that Brennan should no longer have a security clearance once he was out of his job. However, any legitimate libertarian should be able to look at the scenario that has unfolded and realize that Trump's words and actions, for the reasons they were spoken and taken, pose a much larger threat to liberty than simply not revoking Brennan's security clearance would have.

Rand is like a fire marshal tut-tutting the owner of a building for having a burned out light in the stairwell or something while okaying the owner's boarding up every emergency exit. 

[jimmyjazz 46986]

3 hours ago, bernorange said:

You seem to have issues with reading comprehension.  I'm not "justifying Rand's support of a President".  It's been my contention all along that Rand is pursuing his own agenda.  To the extent that he's been able to leverage Trump's support for some of his goals, some folks are happy to push a narrative demonizing Sen. Paul.  That's par for the course in today's TDS flavored political theater, but it's not completely honest.

Does Rand's agenda align with the best interests of his constituents?  I get it, if it doesn't, the "problem" should take care of itself, but that's a theory at this point.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

On 8/16/2018 at 12:44 AM, SpiralOut said:

From the man himself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/the-us-must-engage-with-russia/567646/

The U.S. Must Engage With Russia

Real dialogue is necessary for nuclear-arms reduction.

Rand Paul

Aug 15, 2018

 

On my recent trip to Russia, I spent an hour with Mikhail Gorbachev. I told him that in the West we are grateful that he and President Ronald Reagan defied Cold War orthodoxy to significantly reduce our countries’ nuclear arms. And I asked him whether there was a moment in his life when he’d realized that he might shape history.

He paused a moment and then recounted how as a young man, he had watched a film on the devastation that would occur with nuclear war. He and the other young officials in the room looked at each other in shock as the film concluded.

 

Gorbachev recalled the scene: “Even though I am not a believer, I responded, ‘Oh my God!’” From that moment, Gorbachev said, he decided to use every opportunity that came his way to prevent a nuclear holocaust.

Gorbachev’s youthful concern about nuclear disaster became apparent when he assumed leadership of the Soviet Union. In a speech he gave to senior personnel of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in May 1986, Gorbachev said, “Peace is the value above anything. In the nuclear-cum-space era a world war is the absolute evil. It cannot be won...”

I asked Gorbachev about meeting Reagan for the first time. He said that their first meeting was affable but inconclusive. Press reports from the Reagan camp revealed that Reagan thought Gorbachev was just an old-school Bolshevik. Gorbachev remembered his response when his aides asked whether Reagan was just a hard-line anti-communist. Gorbachev chuckled and said, “No, he is a dinosaur!”

But both men persisted. Despite the Cold War atmosphere, rampant mistrust, and fearmongering on both sides, the leaders engaged each other. Ultimately, multiple agreements were hammered out, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the START treaty. Over a four-year period, the former eliminated nearly 2,700 missiles.

 

Over the years, though, agreements with Russia to reduce nuclear arms have not followed a straight path of success. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush announced his intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by announcing that the INF Treaty might no longer be in Russia’s interests. Russia had ratified START II in 2000 but pulled out of the treaty after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

Most recently, New START took effect in 2011. In addition to placing a cap of 1,550 on deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a nearly three-quarters drop from START, New START also cut in half the allowable number of strategic nuclear-delivery vehicles, such as missile launchers and heavy bombers.

New START expires in 2021. If either side allows it to simply sunset, it will be the first time in several decades that a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia lapses.

As our hour was coming to an end, I asked Gorbachev whether he had any words of wisdom to improve our current dialogue. “Bring the conversation back to nuclear-arms reductions,” he said. “Encourage both sides to restart talk of renewing the START and INF treaties.”

 

That echoed his public call last year:

If the INF treaty could be saved, it would be a powerful signal for the whole world that the biggest nuclear powers understand their responsibility and take their obligations seriously.

Gorbachev argued then, as he did in our meeting, for a summit between President Donald Trump and Putin to discuss nuclear-arms control.

In my meetings with the Foreign Affairs Committees in Russia’s upper house, the Federation Council, and lower house, the State Duma, legislators also expressed an interest in holding formal talks to renew New START and continue the INF Treaty. I have invited members of both Foreign Affairs Committees to Congress this fall to continue these discussions. It is my hope that Democrats who have previously been supportive of nuclear-arms reductions will join in these meetings.

On the long flight home from Russia, as I was reading Eric Metaxas’s book Martin Luther, I realized that great challenges to orthodoxy are rare, but necessary at times to right great wrongs or prevent great tragedy. I, for one, am thankful that Reagan and Gorbachev defied orthodoxy to cut stockpiles of nuclear weapons and reduce the tension between our countries. I hope thoughtful minds will prevail in our current standoff with Russia, and embrace the dialogue necessary to further reduce the potential for the terrible, world-altering catastrophe that a war between nuclear powers could bring.

The day after my meeting with Gorbachev, I visited Bunker 42, built by Stalin to survive a direct nuclear hit on Moscow. Each day, 600 people secretly descended about 180 feet below the streets of Moscow to a bunker protected by 10-foot-thick concrete. In the bunker, I watched a video recounting the nuclear-arms race, which culminated in Russia exploding a 50-megaton hydrogen bomb aboveground that destroyed everything within more than a dozen miles, with effects that could be felt and seen for hundreds of miles more. Likewise, in America, we built an elaborate bunker deep in the mountain adjacent to the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia. Today, thanks to Reagan and Gorbachev—two leaders brave enough to engage in dialogue—these bunkers are decommissioned and open to tourists.

My goal in visiting both government and opposition leaders in Russia is to promote dialogue. My hope on my return to Congress is that I will find bipartisan support for improved dialogue and continued progress on reducing nuclear arms.

 

That dadgum Rand!  Using nuclear disarmament as a cover for secretly doing Putin's bidding!  In the words of Hugo:  TRAITOR!

 

 

 

 

Rand Paul once again playing along with the Kremlin’s playbook.  This is the same shit the Soviets did during the Cold War.  They would repeatedly lie straight to our faces while constantly trying to undermine our institutions and at the same time push the disarm/denuke narrative. 

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP11M01338R000400470089-2.pdf

 They do this because Russia is weak and can’t complete with the US in any conventional theater.  They are at the little kids table but really really want to be back at the big kids table.  They love to remind us about their nukes so we treat them as equals.  Russia is not our equal.  You have to ask, why is Rand doing this now in such a public and political way? 

Rand wants to deal with the Russians?  Well any negotiations should start with an expectation both parties will come to the table in good faith.  Putin has done nothing but repeatedly earn our distrust over the past decade.  He’s invaded other countries and lied about it.  He shot down a passenger airliner and lied about it.  He deployed an assassination operation using a chemical weapon on British soil and lied about it. He lies about everything. None of these observations matter to Rand Paul though, you really have to start wondering why?  Rand might as well go negotiate with a known criminal attempting to sell oceanfront property in Kentucky. For a self proclaimed “non-interventionist” he sure doesn’t have any problem with other countries intervening in our democracy, especially Russia.

The idea that Russia would disarm is also laughable.  The nukes and their intelligence operations are all they have left for leverage.  They just want to get something out of the US and it looks like Rand is happy to bend over and give it to them.  If Russia was serious, they’d stop attacking the West first.  Then perhaps we can talk.  We don’t want to go to war but we do want to see their kleptocracy ended. 

You want to know why the Kremlin keeps assaulting democracy and the West? It’s because they have lap dog bitches like Rand Paul that will run damage control for them afterwards with “We need to avoid a catastrophic war” schtick.

With regards to Russia, Rand Paul is either:

1. A Jill Stein level useful idiot 

2. A morally bankrupt sellout to political power and self preservation (Trumpublican).

3.  A Kremlin stooge.

4. Some combination of 1-3.

All four are unacceptable and he should have no business representing the interests of the American people or democracy in general.

But keep buying Rand’s bullshit if you wish.  The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/the-ron-paul-institute-for-putins-priorities/

“While Paul has been defending the Russian government, his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), a prospective 2016 presidential candidate, has taken a tougher stance against Putin.

"Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community," Sen. Paul wrote in Time magazine last week.

"If I were president, I wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin get away with it," he added.

Sen. Paul’s more muscular language came after some conservatives criticized him for saying Republicans should not "tweak" Russia over the Ukraine issue.”

So tell me again how Rand Paul has been consistent on foreign policy with regards to Russia?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/16/rand-paul-floats-immunity-julian-assange-senators-/

 

 

 

Come on libertarians, you’re smarter than this. 

Rand is part of the problem.

/rant

[Yuk 1612]

 

[retread 2951]

May as well include loyalty oaths too -- to DOTUS, not the USA.

[yoladu 4187]

5 minutes ago, Yuk said:

 

 

had to be done.

[Brisketexan 106653]

14 minutes ago, Yuk said:

 

Excellent.  Hey, Rand, since you work for us -- you know, WE THE PEOPLE - you gelatinous fuckweasel, I think we the people should be able to put all of you fucking senators under lie-detector tests, and we get to ask any fucking questions we want, like about campaign finance, and bribes, and working with foreign powers, because we're your fucking BOSS.  That's what I think, you simpering fucknugget.  We got a deal here?  Wait, maybe you think I was ASKING.   I wasn't.  As your superior, I was TELLING YOU what is going to happen.  Look at the org chart, you little bitch.  It's right there in the Constitution.  You're my bottom bitch.

[Anastasis 23703]

Other than the questionable deployment of the term "bottom bitch", I agree.  Let's line them all up for lie detector tests and have the firing squad warming up. 

[Js1 86965]

Really not having a hard time sympathizing with his neighbor. I’d beat his ass too

[Brisketexan 106653]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Other than the questionable deployment of the term "bottom bitch", I agree.  Let's line them all up for lie detector tests and have the firing squad warming up. 

Dammit, I always mix that one up -- I always end up thinking it means that bottom of the hierarchy, not (counterintuitively), the top of the hierarchy.  Pimpin' ain't easy, and neither is understanding the vocab.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Fuck you, Rand.

Lie detect that you permed assmunch.

[F250 29180]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Dammit, I always mix that one up -- I always end up thinking it means that bottom of the hierarchy, not (counterintuitively), the top of the hierarchy.  Pimpin' ain't easy, and neither is understanding the vocab.

I just learned that a bottom bitch is a prostitute in a supervisory role.

[Brisketexan 106653]

I just learned that a bottom bitch is a prostitute in a supervisory role.

Proper management hierarchy is serious business.

[jimmyjazz 46986]

Has anyone ever seen Rand Paul and Tom Penders in the same room?  Huh?

No, you haven't.  Explains some things, doesn't it?

[Anastasis 23703]

OMG What a fucking animal, bottom bitch, rawrr.  The left has lost their mind. 

 

 

[Anastasis 23703]

ARRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 106653]

Just now, Anastasis said:

OMG What a fucking animal, bottom bitch, rawrr.  The left has lost their mind. 

 

 

# of Americans at risk because Rand is complicit with a lunatic in the White House: 325.7 million.

Rand can go fuck himself in his complicit ass with a rusty spoon of complicity.

[Brisketexan 106653]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

ARRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'd be for criminal justice reform, too, if I knew that I and many of my pals were at risk of going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Fuck Rand and his quisling face.

[Anastasis 23703]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

# of Americans at risk because Rand is complicit with a lunatic in the White House: 325.7 million.

Rand can go fuck himself in his complicit ass with a rusty spoon of complicity.

#DeepNeoConThoughts

[Brisketexan 106653]

Just now, Anastasis said:

#DeepNeoConThoughts

If it's neocon to mock the guy who's worried about a single deck chair, and not the fucking Titanic, than call me that.  IDGAF.  Rand may have some great ideas about the proper way to prepare peach cobbler, who the best baseball player of all time was, and how we should distribute our military power in Africa.  IDGAF -- it's all wiped away by the tsunami of treasonous complicity.  

[Anastasis 23703]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If it's neocon to mock the guy who's worried about a single deck chair, and not the fucking Titanic, than call me that.  IDGAF.  Rand may have some great ideas about the proper way to prepare peach cobbler, who the best baseball player of all time was, and how we should distribute our military power in Africa.  IDGAF -- it's all wiped away by the tsunami of treasonous complicity.  

I have zero doubt in my mind that the international body count under neocon Hillary at this point would be > than Trump is standing currently.  We would be engaged in multiple fronts that have been avoided or at least minimized.  But liberals lose sleep these days when the MIC, the CIA and the FBI don't have free reign over the play.

 

https://medium.com/s/oversight/trump-is-turning-the-enemies-of-civil-liberties-into-liberal-heroes-dc482dcdad7

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

have zero doubt in my mind that the international body count under neocon Hillary at this point would be > than Trump is standing currently. 

Does this include Puerto Rico

[Anastasis 23703]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Does this include Puerto Rico

Sure. 

[Brisketexan 106653]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I have zero doubt in my mind that the international body count under neocon Hillary at this point would be > than Trump is standing currently.  We would be engaged in multiple fronts that have been avoided or at least minimized.  But liberals lose sleep these days when the MIC, the CIA and the FBI don't have free reign over the play.

 

https://medium.com/s/oversight/trump-is-turning-the-enemies-of-civil-liberties-into-liberal-heroes-dc482dcdad7

Really?  Would she have ordered the assassination of Assad?  Would we be in a showdown with uniformed Russian troops as we speak?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

IDGAF.  Buttfuckery right here at home.  Rand is 100% complicit.  Fuck him. Fuck everything about him.  Quislings are beyond redemption, I don't care how good their ideas are about interventionism, mass transit, and community libraries and shit.  Some stains obscure everything else.  

Don't tell me about that hideous beast's lovely ankles.  Maybe they are.  But she's 500 pounds, has a beard, smells like old cheese, and is a cast-iron bitch to boot.  You scope out her ankles all you want and try to convince yourself that she's really pretty.  I'm gonna move somewhere where I don't have to smell that old cheese.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

But she's 500 pounds, has a beard, smells like old cheese,

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Rand has some great positions that he's been ineffective at turning into policy and some really bad positions that he's been effective at turning into policy.  But so glad he keeps talking about the good stuff he never makes good on. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

41 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I have zero doubt in my mind that the international body count under neocon Hillary at this point would be > than Trump is standing currently.  We would be engaged in multiple fronts that have been avoided or at least minimized.  But liberals lose sleep these days when the MIC, the CIA and the FBI don't have free reign over the play.

 

https://medium.com/s/oversight/trump-is-turning-the-enemies-of-civil-liberties-into-liberal-heroes-dc482dcdad7

How do you call Hillary a neocon and expect to be taken seriously?

[Anastasis 23703]

32 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

How do you call Hillary a neocon and expect to be taken seriously?

Is this real life gif. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Hillary was hawkish compared to Obama but neocon?

Yeah, no.

[Anastasis 23703]

Hillary was hawkish compared to Obama but neocon?
Yeah, no.

You gargle her balls at literally every chance you get.

[formermav43 4607]

Can’t imagine how anyone could think that 🙄

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues

[Anastasis 23703]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hillary was hawkish compared to Obama but neocon?

Yeah, no.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/hillary-clinton-necono-republican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/17/12494052/hillary-clinton-neocons

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/23/exclusive-prominent-gop-neoconservative-to-fundraise-for-hillary-clinton/

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

https://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/why-clintons-neoconservative-foreign-policy-will-make-problem-islamophobia-worse-780624261

https://fpif.org/hillary-clinton-neocons/