-6 votes

Rand Paul Has Learned From His Father's Mistakes

Rand Paul has learned from his father's political mistakes. I have learned a lesson or two as well since 2008.

What a ride this has been, and continues to be.

I have no doubt that Rand Paul will seek the republican nomination in 2016.

How about making the disasterous, "War on Drugs," a race issue in the 2016 election? Media couldn't ignore it...Rand Paul would win a lot more votes over that issue alone than would Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush.

Here's something you might hear Rand Paul say in a few years...

"The War on Drugs is flat out racist."

"All non-violent drug offenders should be released from American prisons, ASAP."

True that. Want to win Cleveland? Want to win Cincinnati? Want to win Columbus? WANT TO WIN OHIO? Besides offering the voters free cell phones, what else are you going to do to win Ohio?

Gay, "marriage," no...gay, "unions," yes...that's easy....what about abortion? Pro life, but respects a woman's, "right to choose."

We're going to have to make some big compromises, folks...just keep your eyes on the prize. Political concessions have the power to end economic depressions.

On a very BIG and very important side note...

The ONE thing that stopped Ron Paul from winning the republican nomination was his position on foreign policy - like it or not, that is the truth. If Ron Paul was more of a war hawk, he would probably be the president elect right now...I hate saying that Daily Paulers, but it must be said.

Rand Paul is almost identical to his father on most issues, but his RHETORIC on certain foreign policy positions is what separates Rand from Ron....and for good (political) reasons, besides the fact that he resides in Kentucky.

Let's be honest with ourselves...

When Ron Paul said he wanted to close down all of our overseas bases, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and send every American service member back home...a lot of, "conservative idealists," said, "hell yes!" and the republican party establishment said, "hell no!"

Why'd the GOP say, "hell no!?" Because of the inevitable power vacuum that would ensue as a result. If the Americans simply left and went home, the Chinese and Russians would eventually swoop right in like vultures. They want control over that area just as much as the west does.

What does Vladmir Putin, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez all have in common? They all literally said they hope Obama wins.

It is quite apparent that Obama is a communist. "Forward," duh.

Russia and China are HUGE. I hope Obama is a double agent and is just trying to suck them into the swamp, but his past, mostly unknown history makes me very skeptical of that hopelessly optimistic, unlikely angle.

If the United States packed up and left Afghanistan and Iraq now, who do you think would move in and try to take over that vital geostrategic position on the global map?

Simply stated, Ron Paul's position on foreign policy was viewed as being way too idealistic in a very dangerous, and potentially harmful way to America in the 21st century.

Rand Paul needs to find a way to mend his father's, "conservative idealism," with the GOP's best interests. I think the best way to do that is by being honest with the American people.

If the United States government simply told us we are REALLY fighting against the Soviets and China (still), or if Rand Paul let it slip in a wink wink fashion that that is indeed the case, then perhaps many of the idealistic Ron Paul conservatives will endorse his son in 2016.

I would love to have all of our troops back home, protecting our own borders and minding our own business. But the reality is that the Middle East was carved up into various countries after WWII for very important, FUTURE geostrategic reasons.

Israel was created for geostrategic reasons on a western front. Japan was nuked after WWII was basically already over for geostrategic reasons on the eastern front, that being to send a loud and clear message to both Russia and China.

FDR made an alliance with Russia during WWII, and we are still suffering the consequences of that partnership today.

General Patton wanted to invade both China and Russia, but was denied by FDR...and the rest is history.

Why are we in the Middle East? Why has the West been trying to establish hundreds if not thousands of military bases on the front doorsteps of both Russia and China?

What was Vietnam all about? Look at the map. Uncle Sam was trying to go into the East's back door, but was denied by the United Nations which was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union.

Alger Hiss, anyone?

Why have the West and East been battling over the NAVEL Middle East for over a century?

Definition of NAVEL. 1: a depression in the MIDDLE of the abdomen that marks the point of former attachment of the umbilical cord or yolk stalk.

"Yolk stalk," aka minerals, oil, natural gas, and other vital resources to sustain LIFE instead of the depopulation of the world.

The yolk stalk is what all the fuss is about. It's literally all about life or death.

Why can't we just all share the giant yolk stalk and get along?

Because the East has billions and the West only has millions.

"See China right in front of you."


Bono is a closet conservative, I know it.

When The Rolling Stones played in China, they were not allowed to play, "Brown Sugar," because the commy bastards said so.

In order for the West, and the future of the humanity to Keep on rockin' in a FREE world, the United States can not pull out now at this most critical moment in history.


Just like his father, but with a much better foreign policy.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He learned alright

But not from his dad. He learned to be a war mongering Nation Building, Big Government , Big taxing,more of the same , Politician.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is

Ron Paul's foreign policy is the best thing about the man. Lose, that, and you lose 90% of Paul supporters. But what else can I expect from zooamerica, who in another post essentially argued that because we are dependent on other people's oil we have a right to steal it?

You actually stated the neocon's exact POV which is factually

and philosophically wrong, and is the driving reason for our country's decline.

Rand 2016 yes but it won't be because of the reasons you stated, I guarantee it: neocons are a dying breed...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Rand Paul Should Learn from his Own Mistakes

When you make deals with the devil,you eventually get burned.

If there is anything Rand could learn from Ron Paul's campaign, it would be to only hire staff you could trust to tell the truth and fight to win. Stop pretending to be the good lil rhino Rand, You are just making the establishment laugh as they wait for the perfect time to betray you!

The only reason why

Ron's FP was a problem was because of the MSM which is the long arm of the MIC. You think people fawn over constant war? A strong defense is something everyone can agree with, 2 current wars with a few others on the horizon is not something people are happy to vote for. That is like saying people are against his stance on FP and the TSA too because they are "keeping us safe."

I don't know what you have been reading, but it has been warping your mind. "Lets be more hawkish so we can continue to camp out in Afghanistan (and a handful of other sovereign nations too) so we can have a monetary collapse like the USSR." <=== That is just foolish.

Other than that I agree with you, but I don't call it a compromise, I call it limited governance.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James




Rand Paul can not be painted

Rand Paul can not be painted into a corner like Mitt Romney was.

Rand Paul can win a lot more female votes simply because he's a very handsome, attractive man that speaks softly and carries a big economic stick.

Rand Paul, with his soft voice and good looks alone would woo many a female voters to join the GOP's big tent.

Rand Paul would be the best looking presidential candidate since John Kennedy. Romney lost the female vote by a landslide. His Frankenstein looks did not help.

Hitlery Clinton is likely to be next in line after Obama.

An old bag, or a young lad?

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.