Jump to content

Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23360

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

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/

 

 

 

Uh yeah the neocons loved Hillary in 2016.

Probably because the Republican was Kremlin stooge and a moron.

But keep fucking that chicken. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

atomheartbevo
atomheartbevo

Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530   Dear Senator Paul: Attached is a letter that we received concerning Dr. Anthony Fauci. I feel that you

wildcat09
wildcat09

GOP: "We should add over a trillion dollars to the deficit to give Donald Trump Jr. and the Walton heirs more money."  Rand: "Sign me the fuck up! No we don't need to cut anything else to pay for

CooterBrown
CooterBrown

Posted Images

Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Uh yeah the neocons loved Hillary in 2016.

Probably because the Republican was Kremlin stooge and a moron.

But keep fucking that chicken. 


Probably cause you crush was a fucking neocon. 

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/clintons-natsec-policy-neocon-it-ever-was

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hillarys-neoconservatives/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-trumps-foreign-policy-really-scares-neocons/2016/06/09/86614ac6-2cac-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html?utm_term=.32dcb7236751

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

One of the strangest dynamics of this forum is Hugo’s love and defense of Mama Hillary. 99% of Dems admit she was a bad candidate who sucked but Hugo dies on her hill everytime...and I hate that saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23360

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:


Probably cause you crush was a fucking neocon. 

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/clintons-natsec-policy-neocon-it-ever-was

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hillarys-neoconservatives/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-trumps-foreign-policy-really-scares-neocons/2016/06/09/86614ac6-2cac-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html?utm_term=.32dcb7236751

 

You going to link any neocon Hillary articles that aren’t from 2016? 

The neocons were rightly terrified of Trump and put country over party with Hillary.  

I did the same as she was the first Democrat I voted for President since Kerry in 2004.

Ironically, I voted for Kerry because of the Iraq War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas73

Texas73 420

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

One of the strangest dynamics of this forum is Hugo’s love and defense of Mama Hillary. 99% of Dems admit she was a bad candidate who sucked but Hugo dies on her hill everytime...and I hate that saying.

I know plenty of Democrats who loved and still love Hillary Clinton and considered her a great candidate. I agreed with President Obama that she was as well qualified as any candidate in history. This is not a popular thought here but I'm going with much less than 99% of Democrats admit she was a bad candidate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23360

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Texas73 said:

I know plenty of Democrats who loved and still love Hillary Clinton and considered her a great candidate. I agreed with President Obama that she was as well qualified as any candidate in history. This is not a popular thought here but I'm going with much less than 99% of Democrats admit she was a bad candidate.

I was never a huge fan of Hillary but if anyone has been habitually fucked over in American politics, it’s her.  Sure, she fucked people over too but I’ve never seen someone get more relentlessly demonized and misrepresented than her.  People would even blame her for Bill’s affairs.  It makes me think she must have been doing something right to piss off that many assholes in power.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89452

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

She would have been more subtle.  Think about how Libya went down (and went to pieces).

As far as a showdown with Russian troops or aircraft.....I actually think they'd worry about her more than they would about Trump.  But Mattis is here, and American Green Berets, Rangers, and Marines killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries earlier this year, so hard to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

One of the strangest dynamics of this forum is Hugo’s love and defense of Mama Hillary. 99% of Dems admit she was a bad candidate who sucked but Hugo dies on her hill everytime...and I hate that saying.

Stranger still is the inability of the garden variety Hillary hater to lay out a cogent, persuasive bone marrow hate for her. It rarely gets beyond her being awful, crooked, evil, uninspiring and the worst candidate ever, liar, and those views are usually stand alone and never require explanation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16862

Posted
Posted
Who declined the most:  Douchowitz, Giuliani, Trump or Rand?   I have to lean Giuliani.  Trump was always a dipshit and has gotten worse.  Rudy was America's mayor and liked by the masses...now he's barely coherent. 

If you stripped the emotion away you would have seen that Rudy was a scumbag opportunist who dressed himself in the flag of the victims of 9/11 rather than acted like a compassionate person. GWB was genuine. Rudy made it about him and tried to exploit it for political gain/fame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Satchel said:

Stranger still is the inability of the garden variety Hillary hater to lay out a cogent, persuasive bone marrow hate for her. It rarely gets beyond her being awful, crooked, evil, uninspiring and the worst candidate ever, liar, and those views are usually stand alone and never require explanation.

It's not even about not liking her. I have a theory about why the middle-ground/non-extreme fringe don't like her (read: not the loons who screamed lock her up or said she was a lizard person or whatever). In the Beto thread we talk about how some people just have "it"; a combination of looks, passion, emotional intelligence, likeability, whatever you want to call it. A "winning personality", a "cult of personality", or just "Charisma".

Regardless, Hillary is generally unlikable and doesn't have the personality that easily wins people over. She has no charisma. That is why people didn't like her. It's like they say in sales, "people buy from people" and at the end of the day politics is still a relationship game. You can have the best platform and ideas but if you can't get people to like you then a lot of the time those ideas/platform die on the vine for the guy who is likable (Obama, Bernie, Beto, etc.). 

Is some of it the fact that she is a woman? I'd be willing to bet that is a big piece of it, but that's the world we lived in, in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89452

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

It's not even about not liking her. I have a theory about why the middle-ground/non-extreme fringe don't like her (read: not the loons who screamed lock her up or said she was a lizard person or whatever). In the Beto thread we talk about how some people just have "it"; a combination of looks, passion, emotional intelligence, likeability, whatever you want to call it. A "winning personality", a "cult of personality", or just "Charisma".

Regardless, Hillary is generally unlikable and doesn't have the personality that easily wins people over. She has no charisma. That is why people didn't like her. It's like they say in sales, "people buy from people" and at the end of the day politics is still a relationship game. You can have the best platform and ideas but if you can't get people to like you then a lot of the time those ideas/platform die on the vine for the guy who is likable (Obama, Bernie, Beto, etc.). 

Is some of it the fact that she is a woman? I'd be willing to bet that is a big piece of it, but that's the world we lived in, in 2016.

It’s not helped by the fact that many of us became aware of her not because she was a Senator or in Obama’s administration, but from her intro as Bill’s wife, completed with all of the sleazy Arkansas baggage. 

Many thought she, her hubby, and their friends were going to do to the White House what Trump and Co. are actually doing.  The records mysteriously showing up on a table in the WH seem so quaint now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23360

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sen. Rand Paul floated the possibility of a dialogue with Russia about keeping NATO from further expanding its umbrella into Eastern Europe.

The Kentucky Republican, who recently returned from a trip to Russia for meetings with Russian lawmakers, suggested that the country’s leaders may have fears of NATO seeking to go as far as expanding into Georgia and Ukraine.

“Sanctions are sort of the stick, and the question is what is the carrot. I would say that one of the carrots might be considering whether or not we continue to insist that Ukraine and Georgia be in NATO,” Paul said. “I think that if you really wanted to influence Russia’s behavior and you were talking in a one-to-one basis with Russia and you were to have some sort of agreement, I think an agreement not to have Ukraine and Georgia in NATO might lead to less conflict in both Ukraine and Georgia.”

Paul was speaking at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S.-Russian relations featuring testimony from both the State Department and the Department of the Treasury.

Paul’s questions and commentary were much different from Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle who took a harder line toward President Vladimir Putin. But Paul asked whether the existing U.S. sanctions regime is working and what an alternative might look like.

“A really important question that we have to ask is: do sanctions change behavior? And so, without the answer to that, I think we can’t really decide whether we want more sanctions,” Paul said. “I think one possibility is that they don’t work, and if they don’t work, what is the result of sanctions?”

The Kentucky Republican suggested the Putin government could become more closely aligned with China as a result of economic pressure by the United States.

“I think there are arguments to be made that perhaps more sanctions aren’t the way to go,” Paul said.

Paul has said previously that he would be bringing up with President Donald Trump the possibility of easing sanctions to allow members of the Russian parliament to come to Washington, D.C., as part of exchanges.

Trump played golf with Paul over the weekend at the president’s country club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

He made a similar statement during his remarks at the Foreign Relations panel on Tuesday morning. The hearing came following revelations by Microsoft about recent Russian-backed hacking efforts.

“Whether or not there’s any element of the sanctions where we would be willing to negotiate lessening of sanctions in exchange for maybe a smaller change of behavior. If we wait for Russia to leave Crimea to lift any sanctions, we may well be waiting ’til the end of time,” Paul said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12848

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sen. Rand Paul floated the possibility of a dialogue with Russia about keeping NATO from further expanding its umbrella into Eastern Europe.

The Kentucky Republican, who recently returned from a trip to Russia for meetings with Russian lawmakers, suggested that the country’s leaders may have fears of NATO seeking to go as far as expanding into Georgia and Ukraine.

“Sanctions are sort of the stick, and the question is what is the carrot. I would say that one of the carrots might be considering whether or not we continue to insist that Ukraine and Georgia be in NATO,” Paul said. “I think that if you really wanted to influence Russia’s behavior and you were talking in a one-to-one basis with Russia and you were to have some sort of agreement, I think an agreement not to have Ukraine and Georgia in NATO might lead to less conflict in both Ukraine and Georgia.”

Paul was speaking at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S.-Russian relations featuring testimony from both the State Department and the Department of the Treasury.

Paul’s questions and commentary were much different from Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle who took a harder line toward President Vladimir Putin. But Paul asked whether the existing U.S. sanctions regime is working and what an alternative might look like.

“A really important question that we have to ask is: do sanctions change behavior? And so, without the answer to that, I think we can’t really decide whether we want more sanctions,” Paul said. “I think one possibility is that they don’t work, and if they don’t work, what is the result of sanctions?”

The Kentucky Republican suggested the Putin government could become more closely aligned with China as a result of economic pressure by the United States.

“I think there are arguments to be made that perhaps more sanctions aren’t the way to go,” Paul said.

Paul has said previously that he would be bringing up with President Donald Trump the possibility of easing sanctions to allow members of the Russian parliament to come to Washington, D.C., as part of exchanges.

Trump played golf with Paul over the weekend at the president’s country club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

He made a similar statement during his remarks at the Foreign Relations panel on Tuesday morning. The hearing came following revelations by Microsoft about recent Russian-backed hacking efforts.

“Whether or not there’s any element of the sanctions where we would be willing to negotiate lessening of sanctions in exchange for maybe a smaller change of behavior. If we wait for Russia to leave Crimea to lift any sanctions, we may well be waiting ’til the end of time,” Paul said.

Fucking insane. The list of plausible explanations has evaporated. They are complicit as a party. They are a criminal organization working with the Russian mafia to undermine Democracy around the world in order to maintain power. It’s just amazing that Donald fucking Trump is the guy who flipped them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28694

Posted
Posted
On 9/8/2018 at 3:32 PM, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

It's not even about not liking her. I have a theory about why the middle-ground/non-extreme fringe don't like her (read: not the loons who screamed lock her up or said she was a lizard person or whatever). In the Beto thread we talk about how some people just have "it"; a combination of looks, passion, emotional intelligence, likeability, whatever you want to call it. A "winning personality", a "cult of personality", or just "Charisma".

Regardless, Hillary is generally unlikable and doesn't have the personality that easily wins people over. She has no charisma. That is why people didn't like her. It's like they say in sales, "people buy from people" and at the end of the day politics is still a relationship game. You can have the best platform and ideas but if you can't get people to like you then a lot of the time those ideas/platform die on the vine for the guy who is likable (Obama, Bernie, Beto, etc.). 

Is some of it the fact that she is a woman? I'd be willing to bet that is a big piece of it, but that's the world we lived in, in 2016.

For some reason this made me think of Paul Tsongas. That dude had zero charisma and was running against Bill Clinton, never stood a chance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted

So a guy who, more often than not, is against sanctions is promoting alternatives to sanctions? Absolutely outrageous.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/rand-paul-think-twice-before-sanctioning-iran-21077

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-achieve-peace-the-korean-peninsula-22477

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/12/18/rand-paul-supports-opening-up-relations-with-cuba/?utm_term=.1079aa47238d

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_597df7f8e4b0da64e879b55e/amp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547

Posted
Posted
Fucking insane. The list of plausible explanations has evaporated. They are complicit as a party. They are a criminal organization working with the Russian mafia to undermine Democracy around the world in order to maintain power. It’s just amazing that Donald fucking Trump is the guy who flipped them. 
Trump didn't flip the GOP, he just demonstrated that you don't need to expend that much energy maintaining a facade of integrity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pepper brooks

pepper brooks 579

Posted
Posted
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 7:56 PM, Texas73 said:

I know plenty of Democrats who loved and still love Hillary Clinton and considered her a great candidate. I agreed with President Obama that she was as well qualified as any candidate in history. This is not a popular thought here but I'm going with much less than 99% of Democrats admit she was a bad candidate.

it's not a popular thought because it is completely untrue.  Yes, she was "qualified" in that she had held government jobs.  That said, he work product was an absolute failure making her completely unelectable to anyone who valued being good at performing the jobs where one gained their experience/qualifications.  It also didn't help that she's an extremely unlikeable, narcissistic c*nt.  Guess she and Trump were at a stalemate, or cancelled each other out on that front.   

 

As for Rand, hes a despicable politician who has been corrupted and fallen into the Washington trap that all the rest of them fall into.  He's nothing more than an establishment cancer at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Texas73

Texas73 420

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, pepper brooks said:

it's not a popular thought because it is completely untrue.  Yes, she was "qualified" in that she had held government jobs.  That said, he work product was an absolute failure making her completely unelectable to anyone who valued being good at performing the jobs where one gained their experience/qualifications.  It also didn't help that she's an extremely unlikeable, narcissistic c*nt.  Guess she and Trump were at a stalemate, or cancelled each other out on that front.   

 

As for Rand, hes a despicable politician who has been corrupted and fallen into the Washington trap that all the rest of them fall into.  He's nothing more than an establishment cancer at this point. 

We all have opinions. Why do so many state their opinions as facts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Blotto

Blotto 23434

Posted
Posted

The fact that he can take reasonable positions on some policies doesn't mean he's not a fucking clown.

I'd like to know why he has such a hardon for Russia these days. Can someone explain why we should  be relaxing sanctions on a country that is unapologetically fucking with our political infrastructure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

@Anastasis, do you believe that Rand Paul is doing or will actually do "everything in his power" to end the funding of those Afghan groups? I already gave an example of something in his power that he could do. Will he do it or anything close to it?

narrator: he didn't, because of course he didn't.

Edited by hayden_horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Blotto said:

The fact that he can take reasonable positions on some policies doesn't mean he's not a fucking clown.

I'd like to know why he has such a hardon for Russia these days. Can someone explain why we should  be relaxing sanctions on a country that is unapologetically fucking with our political infrastructure?

Paul has frequently been in favor of relaxing sanctions or against imposing new ones with multiple countries: Iran, North Korea, Cuba. 

This isn’t out of the ordinary for him. I think it’s fair to question any or all of those positions. But the attempt to paint him as some sort of Russian stooge or Trump lackey or traitor or insert-your-favorite-smear-here has more to do with partisanship and/or hysteria infecting preciously reasonable people than it does him.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...