13 votes

Which U.S Senator is more non interventionist than Rand?

For those of you who are so critical of Rand, I would just like for you to answer one question. Which United States Senator is more of a non interventionist than Rand? Foreign policy issues seem to be the main area of disagreement with Rand, and I'll admit that Rand isn't perfect on those issues. But who is better? Please name a United States Senator who is better than Rand on foreign policy issues. Thanks.

Comment viewing options

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

Rand is not the lessor of two evils.

He is fighting evil.

Evil doesn't like that one bit.


This kind of reminds me of

This kind of reminds me of that lesser of two evils argument that the Romney supporters used...
Just saying.

"I will not submit to authority of man. I'm alive, I'm awake, this is more than I can take." -Jordan Page

With Rand you can basically

With Rand you can basically say that he's the lesser of two goods.

Gary Johnson Down vote down

Gary Johnson Down vote down vote down vote lol we troll our own pages now lol

BMWJIM's picture


If Ron says he will vote for Rand. If Ron campaigns for Rand.

I will TRUST RON. Am I a sheep for following Ron. NO, but I do trust him for he will not endorse or push for anything without great study and counsel. Once I see his argument, then I will decide whom to vote or help. Any other answer from you great seers of the future is just opposition and you get what you deserve. I just hope I can F you at that time.

Quit the arguing and just ask RON! Hell, Ask Carol. I am so tired of the BS from the DP and Supposed RP supporters I will spite you assholes just like I did Romney!

Now please think about what I just wrote. We just lived the GOP equivalent of this. You people are doing the same, which makes me think you are the same GOP operatives that CAUSED RON PAUL to LOSE.


1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.


end of discussion. :)

Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

Barbara Boxer?

Barbara Boxer?

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

There's no point

For Rand-bashers, it's perfection or bust. You can't get them to come around because Rand is imperfect, so they treat him like all the others in Congress even though he's not even close to being in the same category as them. These people will just use the lesser of evils argument..."the least of 100 evils is still evil."

Who is "MORE" interventionist??

This is a lesser of evils question.

obama signed extention of Patriot, wiretapping and other crap. romney did not, but supports it. So by your question, well, you see the flaw.

I am a true patriot who honors the Constitution. I will NEVER compromise with corrupt politicians that would compromise my principles or the Constitution. As somebody noted, NRA is the perfect example. In compromise, one or both parties ALWAYS lose something.

It is time that WE, r3VOLution, TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK!

Come on people, Ron hasn't even started his college speaking tour yet, and you are already succumbing to compromise!!!!

L O O K >> H E R E >> : Is this the example [compromise values] that you want to give to the younger college generation, as Ron speaks to them?????

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Garan's picture

More than One Context, Multiple Fronts

There are multiple fronts to a war.
The ideals may be solid, yet those ideals need to translate into some kind of action.

In the context of congress, an all or nothing approach for liberty leaves you with nothing, which is not a good way to make headway in the government game (the congressional context).

There are other ways to affect change, yet, regarding Rand, I think people are looking for someone to support that will at least push in the general direction of the liberty ideals.

The quick dismissal of people who aren't "in-it" all the way for liberty is a rejection that (if done to their face) may push people away from liberty lovers.

I think it is good to keep the doors open, even if there are few if any you would want to support or even speak with.

However, regarding personal ideals and beliefs, it's liberty all the way.
I just wish there was more of a sense of liberty momentum that Ron Paul was (is?) able to attract.


Well, I tried. I guess I can't convince people to see clearly when they don't understand what clear is.

The dems and republicans are and will continue to be in power. It is interesting that they are both corrupt, whacked out on positions, yet continue to remain organized.

After 2008 and 2012, one would think that this r3VOLution would have learned a thing or two :-(

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

either you're an interventionist

or you're not.


Rand's actions has proven to be the former.

The slogan press on has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.

- Calvin Coolidge

he can stay a senator of

he can stay a senator of kentucky, stay where he belongs kentucky!

Ron Paul 2016

expectations for Rand

It is possible that expectations are driving people to dislike Rand. If he were not the son of Ron, then the expectations wouldn't be so high, and the liberty folks would view him as an ally.

He is currently on our team, arguably the highest ranking politician on our side. I'd encourage people to be optimistic or at least cautiously optimistic regarding Rand, and to roll back the negativity.

But then again, maybe he's an Anakin... time will tell.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

If Ron Paul has proven one

If Ron Paul has proven one thing it is that the "perfect candidate" is an unelectable candidate.

If we are to be governed by Men, then WE WILL be governed by either evil, or by the lesser of evil...

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Not true TxRedneck GRRRRRRR

msm, corrupt tactics, physical harm, stripped of credentials, Tampa was a sham.

Ron Paul led in polls. People woke up and it was spreading.

There is a difference between a candidate who can not drum up support and a candidate who was f&cked by corrupted party morons.

Ron Paul, close to perfect as one can get, VERY electable and very well may have been [president].

Jeesus, don't you even remember the rallies and people sitting in trees???!!!!!!!

If you consider yourself r3VOLution, start acting like it. I am sick of weak attitudes around this place.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

"msm, corrupt tactics,

"msm, corrupt tactics, physical harm, stripped credentials, Tampa was a sham" equals unelectable.
"candidate who was f&cked by corrupted party morons." equals unelectable.
"Ron Paul, close to perfect as one can get," but was unelectable, see your own list for reasons of his unelectablity.

Your list essentially comes down to "he was not one of them so they f&cked him". "They" told us in 2004 that he was unelectable, and they proved it 2 times.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Essentially, it comes down to this:

I knew that there would be a time and a place when I would discover who is truly on the side of Liberty, Freedom, and who would prove worthy to defend and fight.

"They" proved nothing to me. Neither have you.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Certainly there will always

Certainly there will always be a number of people who live in denial of reality and only live for the dream of their idea of Utopia. Unfortunately the Majority watch MSM and listen to those very souls that make this dream a nightmare. That's reality. It is an obvious fact, to most, that Ron Paul was not elected 2 times. That's reality, that's fact...he is unelectable.

You WILL have to settle for the lesser of Evil, because the Majority wins. Look around, the Majority is not with you. As the Liberty Movement grows, so does the Entitlement Movement. Collapse is the only correction to this, only when the Entitlement Movement loses faith will the boat begin to turn around.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence


You speak truths, and non-truths.

I do not live in denial, though you are correct that it does exist.

Your final analogy may be what is in store for this nation, its people. But my successes have taught me to never give up or quit.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I do not give up either, not

I do not give up either, not for myself. I do not choose evil OR the lesser of evil. I do not desire to be represented by another, not by Ron Paul, not by any other man/woman. I do not desire to be represented, I only desire to be myself for myself.

This is why I do not vote. I have tried to convince others of the same, but no one seems to understand that voting and putting others in positions of Authority to control their lives is the problem, not WHO is in office, but that THEY are in office, whether THEY be evil or the lesser of evil.

Again, as long as WE desire MEN to govern us, WE WILL be governed by Evil, or by the lesser of Evil. Only those who are governed by themselves are at Liberty. Why does the Liberty Movement continue to Vote in favor of being Governed?

Unlimited Government is Evil, Limited Government is the lesser of Evil. And yet NO ONE in the Liberty Movement wants to vote for the Lesser of Evil??? YOU PEOPLE MAKE NO SENSE TO ME. You desire Limited Government, yet seemingly REFUSE to vote for it.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

All government becomes evil.

The poor man walking down the street minding his own business who gets his head bashed in because another person believed him to be a vagrant, did not like his skin color or the clothes that he was wearing, or just wanted all of his money. And the same person does it again.

The Constitution outlines god/God given rights, or rights by nature.

Do not INFRINGE, as outlined above. So, limited government, one defined by Liberty, is needed for humans to understand that they may not infringe upon another. Complete utopia is moot, but to abandon limited government all together would abandon my natural born right to not be infringed. Thus enslaved.

My hope of Ron Paul as president was single-threaded; to utilize Executive Order, which is granted by the Constitution, to eliminate all non-Constitutional Executive Orders, signed by previous presidents. Well, that along with auditing the Fed, since it is the source, and it also involves MY hard-earned dough.

To not vote utlimately allows some majority to prevail. As long as we live on this far from perfect world [non-utopian], we must do what we can do to protect our natural-given rights. This requires more than one.

Of course there is local which is more important, and then the individual which is most important, as you have outlined above.

You are intelligent enough to understand the rest of where I am going with this.

TxRedneck, now that I have read your post, I know now that you are a really good guy :-)

Oh, one more thing: you must vote.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

No. You see when I say I'm

No. You see when I say I'm WILL NOT under any circumstance vote for Evil OR the lesser of Evil, I mean just that. I WILL NOT VOTE. Period.

You people that love the Constitution, you love limited government. You love the lesser of Evil. Yet you claim that you will never vote for the lesser of Evil.

The Liberty movement claim to support free markets. Yet your beloved constitution gives government the right to regulate trade, gives government the right to set the value of money, to create unlimited debt for which the People are responsible, and to tax the People to pay this debt. This document of "freedom" gives government the right to suppress insurrection which is to limit any revolution. It establishes Habeas Corpus, BUT, Habeas Corpus can be suspended in case of rebellion (revolution), or just to support the public's safety, of course this "safety" is determined by the State. The right to take private land...

The very things that this Liberty movement claims to be against, while at the same time insisting that this document must be followed...it amazes me.

No. I will not vote for anyone that supports this document. Nor will I vote for anyone who violates it after swearing to uphold it.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence


We are somewhat in agreement. But we are still imperfect beings in an imperfect world. Humans still have thousands, millions of years to evolve, I pray in the right direction.

Utopia does not exist.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Hmm, I suppose you're right...

He is the least of 100 evils...OK, you win!


How your sample is only out of 100 people. How about we look at all of congress.

for starters Ron Paul.. then Dennis Kucinich. That's at least 2 right there. I am sure your man is further down the totem poll when you take a bigger sample. Here is a list of "Noes" against the ndaa. Thats pretty stiff competition for your man the "Great Compromiser"

Bass (CA)
Braley (IA)
Burton (IN)
Carson (IN)
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Coffman (CO)
Davis (IL)
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Frank (MA)
Graves (GA)

Griffith (VA)
Hastings (FL)
Huizenga (MI)
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Murphy (CT)

Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Roe (TN)
Ryan (OH)
Scott (VA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Van Hollen
Walsh (IL)

Rand Paul voted against the

Rand Paul voted against the 2012 NDAA that all of these reps voted against. What's your point?

all of these Reps?

I think not. My Rep voted against it...and The Patriot act every time it has been up. Rand is fine, but he isn't the only one.

edit: I read your post wrong!, not the first time. Apparently we agree.

The point being is that he

The point being is that he isn't sitting by himself as the great non-interventionist. Compared to dog poop, his record shines quite brightly, but he is not alone. There are other individuals with similar records. Since this is the case, I would put him at around 1 out of about 50 people or so that I would have to decide nominating for president.

That's ridiculous. There are

That's ridiculous. There are only a handful of house members who are as non interventionist as Rand. How many house members support withdrawing from Afghanistan, support ending foreign aid, support closing down foreign military bases, and oppose pre-emptive war with foreign countries? Hardly any. Amash, Jones, and Duncan are the only house members that you could possibly say are more non interventionist than Rand.