Rand Paul questions Democrats on war via his Facebook

[LP2K12]

This happened to come across my news feed on Facebook. I'm not a fan of Rand, but I do identify as a Libertarian Democrat, hence why FB's algorithm shows me some of these updates.

It's not often that I would agree with someone outside of the party, but he poses an excellent question. What say you fellow DUers? The article is pure trash, but the Facebook quote caught my attention as not only a Dem, but also as a veteran. Do we support war & conflict to show support for our party and candidates or do we oppose war and risk being labeled traitors to the cause?

For a generation, Democrats stood up against Republican presidents who they deemed to be too eager to go to war—or too ready to put troops in harm’s way without the full consent of the American people through their elected representatives in Congress. Where have those Democratic protectors of the constitutional authority of Congress gone?

[URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

I didn't want to link to the facebook post or the article for obvious reasons, so I've included a screen cap.

[still_one]

1. What misrepresentation of history. FDR asked Congress for an act of war during WWII. The

republicans were the ones who impeded it at the time. The Korean War was under Harry Truman. The Viet Nam War was under Johnson. Eisenhower sent advisors in, but it was Kennedy who not only sent advisors in, but involved in the assisination of Diem. Johnson though accelerated that war big time.

With regard to the Middle East, that is fully laid at the feet of the republicans, and spineless Democrats who were afraid of being called non-patriotic if they didn't vote for attacking Iraq. Afghanistan, both parties were in sync.

So Mr. Rand's view is a distortion of historical fact. In fact the Paul's believe we should not have gotten involved in WWII, which I along with others disagree with. Ron Paul, don't know about his son, believes there also should not have been a civil war, and that the slavery issue would have resolved itself, which I do not agree with either.

I suspect he is trying to persuade Democrats who are unhappy with Obama, to support him, but those Democrats who know where it is at, know it is hogwash

[LP2K12]

4. To clarify.

As stated above I'm sure the article is hogwash, I didn't even read it.

I think the blurb I quoted sparked my interest because I've seen a plethora of responses to Veteran's Day posts that displayed a belief or mindset that we should not be sending more troops to Iraq and that soldier's are basically forced into working in the MIC versus learning a career.

Appreciate your response. Glad my posting this wasn't taken the wrong way.

[former9thward]

11. FDR asked for a Declaration of War on Dec. 8, 1941.

Nobody impeded it. Only one person voted against it, a pacifist (she also voted against WW I). .

[still_one]

13. Pearl Harbor was the motivating factor, prior to that they were pushing for an isolation policy

At least that is how I recall

Your point is well put

[Cha]

27. "So Mr. Rand's view is a distortion of historical fact".. big fucking surprise. Thank you for

explaining this, still one.

It will be interesting to see how ol rand paul explains his anti war stance to republicons during the primary instead of pandering the "libertarian dems".

[still_one]

30. Paul is doing this to try and divide Democrats, and hope that his supposed anti-war message will

resonate with some of the Democrats, who might then be inclined to vote for them.

WWII was definitely a defensive war. The Korean war might be argued as defensive also, but not Viet Nam, and definitely not our invasion of Iraq.

Of course today, Paul is somewhat correct, that a good number of republicans in the congress are chomping at the bit to re-engage in Iraq, push us into a war with Iran, and Syria, which President Obama has been avoiding. He has opened a dialog with Iran, which the republicans are not happy with, provided limited support to Iraq to defend against ISIS, and got the chemical weapons removed from Syria. No small feat indeed.

[sabrina 1]

36. Did you support Bush's foreign policies? I didn't, I could not be more opposed to our expanding war

started by Cheney/Bush and to answer Rand Paul, I haven't gone anywhere. I still oppose them. So as far as people who are still outraged over torture and unnecessary wars, in Afghanistan, yes I opposed that one also, and Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Somalia and wherever else we are these days.

So, what is your position on all these Bush/Cheney Foreign policies, drones, torture etc. I remamber the OUTRAGE over Bush using drones. I am still outraged over it.

So if Rand Paul is asking ME where I went, if he's saying that I am a hypocrite because now I don't oppose these policies, I can tell him he is wrong, I am still here, still BEGGING for War Criminals to be prosecuted, and no, I am not a hypocrite, because I don't care which party is doing it, these neocon policies are criminal.

How about you? What would your answer to him be?

[Itchinjim]

2. Fuck Rand Paul.

And his old man too.

[FSogol]

3. Google Rep Barbara Lee (D) and you're pretty gullible if you think Rand is credible on anything.

Rand's question is pure BS. Did you and Rand forget how many Democrats voted to authorize the wars Bush said were necessary?

PS. Fuck Rand Paul.

[LP2K12]

5. I'm familiar with Rep Lee.

However, one Democrat does not a party make. I never said he was credible, only that it sparked my interest as to what other Democrats thought about what he said. Mostly because of recent anti-war/anti-military posts I've encountered.

[GeorgeGist]

6. They got fucked by the people who voted for you.

[Blue_Tires]

7. Oh, right...It's Tuesday, so Paul changed his stance once again

Why Rand Paul Suddenly Wants to Bomb Syria

Last year, the Republican powerhouse warned that bombing Syria would create a “jihadist wonderland.” Here’s why he changed his tune.

After President Barack Obama announced on Wednesday his strategy for expanding the war against ISIS into Syria, Sen. Rand Paul offered his rebuttal, alleging that the war was unconstitutional without congressional authorization; it was an obvious move, being the “libertarian-ish” conservative that he is. Less duh was Paul's endorsement of the war itself: “This is an intervention, and I don’t always support intervention—but this one I support.”

Well, up to a point. Paul is OK with bombing Syria. He just doesn’t want to support the moderate rebels who are fighting ISIS—and the Bashar al-Assad regime—there. To foreign policy hawks, it’s a hopelessly naive, convoluted, possible flip-flop of a strategy.

The junior Kentucky senator and early front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination earned a reputation as a noninterventionist in no small part due to his fervent opposition to the U.S. over involving itself in the Middle East. As Assad gassed his own people, for example, Paul advised against U.S. involvement—warning that undermining Assad would result in a “jihadist wonderland.”

So it’s no surprise that Paul’s many critics pounced on his position that America should do everything in its power to combat ISIS. To them, it seemed like something of a 180. Earlier this week, Sen. John McCain took to Twitter to needle his longtime foe over his willingness to fight ISIS:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/11/why-rand-paul-suddenly-wants-to-bomb-syria.html

[freshwest]

12. Blue Tires :)

[Johonny]

40. +1

Meanwhile Rand Paul's own party is wondering why Obama hasn't invaded yet...

[Blue_Tires]

8. And motherfuck Rand Paul and his gullible cheerleaders on DU...

talk about selective amnesia

[wyldwolf]

29. I was wondering if this was the same Rand Paul some DUers were swooning over recently.

[Spazito]

9. What is a Libertarian Democrat?

To me, that label is an oxymoron. Libertarian principles are antithetical to Democratic principles in substance.

The first believes in 'I got mine, fuck anyone else', the other believes in 'the greater good'. Completely different, imo.

[LP2K12]

10. For some light reading...

Libertarian Democrats: A movement in search of a leader

Am I the Only Libertarian Democrat in America?

All those "nifty" political compasses plot me as Moderate Libertarian Liberal. Take it for what it is, I was a Republican straight out of high school. Didn't quite enjoy Republican policies while I served or after my enlistment ended. Did research. Switched my party affiliation to Democrat and have voted blue ever since. I don't always agree with the policies, but I refuse to vote red.

I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment (my signature shows the points at which I bend), I'm against increased surveillance, for the legalization of marijuana (both medically and for recreation), etc.

[Spazito]

14. Do you believe in using tax dollars for social programs?

regulated capitalism or unregulated capitalism?
environment regulations?
imposition of civil rights laws on private enterprises?

The reason I ask is the above actions are anathemas to Libertarians.

In reading the Washington Post link, it seems the only issue in tandem with some Democrats is the NSA/surveillance issue. The article seems to infer Ron Wyden is a Libertarian Democrat yet I can find nothing where he identifies himself as such.

[LP2K12]

15. Answers...

Do you believe in using tax dollars for social programs? Yes.

Unregulated capitalism.

Environmental regulations? (To an extent. Examples: Big oil companies need to be regulated to protect the environment. Citizens should not be punished for having a well-kept food garden in their backyard due to local environmental policy.)

Civil rights laws on private enterprise? Yes, civil rights laws are universal.

[Spazito]

16. Thank you for your response...

I am genuinely curious so I hope you don't mind as I still can't get my head around 'Libertarian Democrat'.

What positions do you have that are Libertarian? I understand you are a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but, to me, that isn't strictly a Libertarian stance, many people from all political stripes also support it.

I am editing to add: Believing in unregulated capitalism is definitely a Libertarian belief. Could you explain why you believe as you do on this issue?

[LP2K12]

20. I'll list some of them straight from ontheissues.

- Affirm the right to keep and bear arms.
- Restore and revive a free market health care system.
- Eliminate all restrictions on immigration.
- Union activity by choice only.
- Oppose communication censorship, especially about religion.
- Pass constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
- Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state.
- Allow drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, and suicide.

[Spazito]

21. If you were to assign a percentage to each...

what percentage would you put on the Libertarian side of your beliefs and what percentage would you put on the Democratic side of your beliefs? ie 80/20, 50/50

[LP2K12]

25. Apologies for the delay.

Had to feed the children and get them down for the evening.

Lib/Dem

20/80.

I don't have the "mine mine mine, government is bad, burn the dollar" mentality that I've seen some other Lib influenced friends have.

I'm also very flexible on it. For example, I don't really prefer the ACA as it stands, but I support it because I believe affordable and universal healthcare is important and it's a step towards something better.

[baldguy]

17. If you believe civil rights laws should apply to private enterprise,

And that big oil companies need to be regulated to protect the environment, then you want to regulate capitalism you commie pinko socialist you.

You're just proven that "Libertarian Democrat" IS an oxymoron.

[LP2K12]

19. I was also enlisted in Military Intelligence.

I've been told that is an oxymoron as well.

[gratuitous]

18. Unregulated capitalism but environmental regulation?

You seem a mite confused. If a business is regulated to protect the environment, then that is by definition a regulation on their capitalistic designs. Why, in your formulation, should a business have to do or spend anything to ameliorate the damage to the environment inflicted by their business practices?

As for "unregulated capitalism," are you advocating for the kind of unrestrained robber barony that gave us the 2008 financial market crisis? Failure to regulate or even look very closely at the CDO market gave us the wholly predictable meltdown that was (in the words of blogger Atrios) Big Shitpile. If you're in favor of such a volatile marketplace, I take it that you were also against the bailout of the financial markets by the taxpayer. What remedy - if any - should be available to a pension fund that got deep-sixed by such chicanery by the big financial houses? Are the individual pensioners then just left to starve in the street since their retirement income has gone where the woodbine twineth? And since there are no laws or regulations on the financial market, it's clear that the authors of such a catastrophe would be innocent of any crime, and therefore free to offer their unique expertise again in the financial realm? Without regulation, would investors even have the right to know that their trusted financial advisors had such a checkered past?

Let me know when you've had a chance to work out the answers to these questions, because I have a boatload more of them.

[Eridenus]

35. You're dead meat.

You're no Democrat. You're a Liberterian.

There, you are in the wrong sounding board.

Frei Republik is that way ------------------------------------------>

[FSogol]

22. A Libertarian Democrat is a Republican that is fooling himself.

See also; gullible chump.

[Spazito]

24. Given the information I gleened from the responses I received...

it's either that or a Libertarian who attaches the label Democrat in hopes of collecting unaware followers.

[LP2K12]

26. I don't stump for the Lib party.

During the last Presidential election I had an Obama sign in my yard. During the most recent election I had a Charlie Crist bumper sticker. Sure, the Lib label most likely allows me to carry some of my beliefs over from when I was a registered Republican (straight out of high school in 2004). I've never attempted to sway someone towards lib ideals.

[Spazito]

28. Why would you support President Obama when he is against most of...

what you espouse to believe?

You posted a Rand Paul article, he's a Libertarian through and through, yet you say you have never attempted to sway someone toward Libertarian ideals (I find using the word "Libertarian" much better than "lib" as one could see "lib" as meaning liberal), it makes for an interesting juxtaposition to me.

[LP2K12]

31. I didn't post the article.

I posted a screenshot of a status that was include in my feed under "You might like this..."

I specifically avoided linking to the update or to the DailyBeast article.

I supported President Obama in the election because like many other's who graduated when I did, I voted for Bush because I thought it was the cool thing to do. We had been attacked, I enlisted and it seemed like the right choice. There was no research into it. It was "Oh, hey... everyone else is doing it."

I went to an Obama rally in Tampa. I genuinely trusted him when he spoke. Did I agree with everything he said? No. However, I figured based upon what I heard from him that he was the best choice to get my battle buddies out of two wars they didn't need to be in. For the most part, I believe he's done his best to bring them home.

I also voted for him because I work in health care and I was tired of seeing my patient's denied coverage or losing equipment because they can't afford it. Was the ACA my ideal version of health care for our country? No, but again it's a step in the right direction. Many have asked why I didn't align with Romney because of Romneycare and for me it just came down to not trusting the man when he spoke.

Bumping over to Charlie Crist is the same thing... sure he's a flip-flopper, but compared to Rick Scott, he's a saint. I've seen so many friends give up on their careers as teachers because of that man. He's horrible for Florida.

I guess I could go independent, but those candidates never win. The high profile Libertarians such as Ron Paul and his son are too extreme for my tastes (as a veteran I believe drones have their place and why wouldn't you use a drone instead of a soldier). I could get into how I believe the war in Afghanistan was necessary, but Iraq wasn't... but then again, who really cares about that.

[Spazito]

32. I stand corrected, you posted his Facebook quote not an article...

I have appreciated our discussion and your polite responses. It has been interesting. I still can't get my head around combining Libertarian and Democrat at all, even after out discussions as your responses come across to me as more of a 'blue dog' Democrat than Libertarian.

[LP2K12]

33. I appreciated the discussion as well.

I will look into that. I'm strictly going by what these political compasses tell me, what I've read and how I vote. I'm only twenty-eight and have plenty to learn. All I know is I want my children to inherit something better than I did. Thanks for the discussion.

[FSogol]

37. "in hopes of collecting unaware followers" Geez, waves and waves of disingenuous

Rand Paul supporters had never done that on DU.

See "name removed" and "Fuck Rand Paul."

[Spazito]

38. LOL n/t

[ozone_man]

34. In earlier times, there was Jefferson.

And in modern times Chomsky. Both were/are left libertarians. The latter a socialist too. Labels... Watch the usage of the capital L and small l, as it helps differentiate between the modern Libertarian party, and simply having libertarian ideals.

There is a divide between Hamiltonian democracy (central banking) and Jeffersonian democracy (agrarian economy), not necessarily in this link, but it's out there. Hamiltonian is what we have, our FED banking, Goldman, JP Morgan and all the Wall Street sleaze, military industrial complex. He won, though he lost the dual.

http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco57.htm

Libertarian Democracy

It is not possible to separate Jefferson's "democracy" from his "libertarianism" without doing damage to his overall political thought. Taking democracy as government directed ultimately by the will of the people, and libertarianism as the protection of individuals in their inalienable rights, it is clear that Jefferson expected a government controlled by the will of the people to be kept in check by them, and that the people themselves would then be able to see to it that their liberties were secured. Jefferson's "system" of government may be seen as composed of three coordinate aspects: (1) a human mechanism for exerting ultimate regulatory control, (2) a structural means for implementing free government, and (3) a philosophy of free government to guide its structure and administration. The controlling mechanism was the sovereignty of the people en masse; the structural means, a constitution with its republican forms; and the philosophy, the inalienable rights of individuals and the principles of republicanism. Supreme over all this was the "will of the people," because without that, no philosophy could implement itself, and no structure would remain pure for long. Indeed, without the control of the people, who or what would see to it that the nation was directed by a philosophy of free government? Without their oversight, who or what would assure that the protections for inalienable rights would not be dismantled by despotic interests? Written documents alone cannot guarantee individual rights unless those documents place power in the hands of the people who will see to it that their rights are preserved.

"The mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

Moreover, it is the spirit of the people that keeps a republic on course, not just the written documents, although those are essential also, of course.

"[Our] object is to secure self government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

But without the people, without their spirit and participation, the structure of a republic would soon disintegrate.

"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

This is the mechanism that protects our individual rights. It is democracy itself that preserves liberty, and not merely the structure of the government, not even the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These last will all be gradually enervated if the people do not remain on their guard. And any disparagement of the democratic process by those who profess a love of liberty is a strike against the only means whereby liberty itself can be established and preserved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Libertarianism

Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˌnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher, [13][14][15][16] cognitive scientist, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[17] Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics.[18][19][20] Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, an anarchist,[21] and a libertarian socialist intellectual. Chomsky is often viewed as a notable figure in contemporary philosophy.

Beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam War, Chomsky established himself as a prominent critic of US foreign and domestic policy. He has since established himself as a prominent and prolific political philosopher and commentator; he is a self-declared anarcho-syndicalist as an adherent of libertarian socialism, which he regards as "the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society."[22]

[Spazito]

39. It's interesting, I wonder if, in today's context, would Jefferson be more likely to be...

a Democrat, a Republican or a Libertarian given the structures and principles of those parties or would he be unaligned?

As to Chomsky, from what you have posted, he is both an anarchist and a socialist rather than a libertarian. If one is an "adherent of libertarian socialism" what does that mean? What is libertarian socialism from your perspective? Combining libertarian and socialism strikes me as much of an oxymoron as does Libertarian Democrat.

[ozone_man]

41. We can guess.

Jefferson, in today's classification, would probably be a libertarian democrat, kind of like the OP suggests. He was against central banking scheme of Hamilton, which is what we have today.

Chomsky is a socialist, an anarchist, and a libertarian. All with lower case. There seems to be a conflict between socialist and libertarian ideals, but if one is not dogmatic, there is room for all three, including anarchism. If you believe in civil liberties, than you are libertarian. If you believe in national health care, then you are socialist, and so on. A key point is that he is not authoritarian, or right wing, the rest is all compatible. I think left libertarian is a more useful descriptor.

[Township75]

23. We are right here with those that were outraged by $2.50/gal gas!

And I will attack you and rand Paul to deflect the question!