36 votes

Here are Rand's so-called "sanctions" from his TIME magazine editorial:

Here are Rand's so-called "sanctions" from his TIME magazine editorial:

1) "I would support immediate construction of the Keystone Pipeline."

OMG!

2) "We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia."

Say it ain't so.

3) "The U.S. should suspend its participation in this summer’s G-8 summit and take the lead in boycotting the event in Sochi."

This is not exactly all bad.

4) "I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it."

Rand wants Europe to pay for their own defense.

5) "I would immediately remove every obstacle or current ban blocking the export of American oil and gas to Europe, and I would lift restrictions on new oil and gas development in order to ensure a steady energy supply at home and so we can supply Europe with oil if it is interrupted from Ukraine."

This is just basic free market philosophy.

6) "Visa bans should be imposed and enforced."

This one cuts both ways but is not exactly draconian. Those concerned about illegal immigration might like it. And whatever it is, it is certainly Constitutional. So I think the people are making a mountain out of a molehill. WTFU!

UPDATE:

Here is the TIME magazine article;

Opinion Foreign Policy
Sen. Rand Paul: U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression

Sen. Rand Paul

March 9, 2014
http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-act...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

In light of this:

In light of this: http://www.dailypaul.com/322909/rand-paul-blames-putin-for-a... ; this thread needs to be bumped.

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

Here is the TIME magazine article for reference

Here is the TIME magazine article for reference;

Opinion Foreign Policy
Sen. Rand Paul: U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression

Sen. Rand Paul

March 9, 2014

http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-act...

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

Constitutional...

"And whatever it is, it is certainly Constitutional. So I think the people are making a mountain out of a molehill. WTFU!"

Where exactly does it say in the Constitution that US backed regime change is the order of the day ... or even legal

I'd say it's a mountain a mountain of shit just like Syria, just like Libya, just like Iraq, just like Afghanistan and so on and so on.. who here needs to wake up .. Nobody can stand and say they are for the People's Rights and for Liberty & the Constitution whilst perched upon the "US Corporate Central Banking Military Machine" funded mountain of poop..

Rand has never advocated

Rand has never advocated regime change. You did not read the article before you commented.

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

Another transfer of wealth

His best point is that Europe should pay for its own defense. It's about time as Europe has more people and a larger GNP than the US and adjoins Ukraine.

As a former Keystone Pipeline supporter, I would quarrel about subsidizing the export of North American fuel to the extent that is in the plans. Keystone is mostly about exporting fuel. That is why it goes from northern Canada to Gulf refineries. There will be some temporary jobs building the pipeline and some refinery jobs. However, it this was about energy independence, the refineries would be in Canada or the northern tier states.

Also, US manufacturers presently have a cost advantage with energy as natural gas is much cheaper in North America than in Europe. Building out a bunch of LNG terminals for export will increase the price of natural gas for home heating and manufacturing because of more demand for that gas. Put it this way: Exporting our natural gas will be more profitable for the shareholders of energy companies but will be more expensive for home owners and will cause some job losses in manufacturing. If you like what the Fed does for banks, you will like what subsidizing energy export does for energy company profits.

Bump dat!

Bump dat!

Michael Nystrom's picture

Which is just another way of saying that Rand Paul is full of

Which is just another way of saying that Rand Paul is full of empty rhetoric.

He says, "I wouldn't let Putin get away with it." Oh really? How is all of this going to stop Putin from "getting away with it?"

Some of you people are so naive.

None are so easy to fool as those who are so desperate to believe.

If anything, this post just makes this editorial all the clearer:
On foreign policy, Rand Paul makes no sense

He's the man.

I read it differently

The general neo-con line, which is repeated endlessly, is accepted by the majority of voters. Unfortunately for the neo-cons, they have no real policy proposals to 'stop Putin' except to launch some kind of military action, which is clearly insane.

Now, I don't think Putin is the real bad guy here, so I don't really want to see the U.S. take action to punish him or Russia. But if I were a politician I would know that some kind of anti-Russia stand would be necessary if I want to remain credible.

So Rand, being a subversive libertarian, beats his chest and says that HE will punish the Russians...by cutting off the subsidies, removing trade barriers, and other pro-freedom moves...proving that he has effective ways of 'hurting' Putin (while at the same time quietly promoting non-intervention).

I like it. Makes sense to me.

Do you not agree with what he

Do you not agree with what he is suggesting? I realize to people like us (those who use parts of our brains that the average American does not) that it may sound a bit like...

" Hey Russia, if you misbehave...we are going to punish you by enforcing our constitution on ourselves".

Duh!

Fine...but the end result is still what it is.

Good post!

*nuff said!

Jeremy

justify the new tyrant

Nice justification of the new neo con 'we should re-install the missile defense but MAKE Europe pay for it'

Mike

Really? A tyrant? Quit being

Really? A tyrant? Quit being such a drama queen.

"Sanctions" in Name Only

....Constitutional in actuality.

Big difference.
Go Rand! Brilliant!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Correct

Rand is smart about how he plays politics...

He'll use hawkish or neo-con rhetoric at times, but if you look at the truth of his positions and his voting record he's 100% Constitution.

Would be our best President since Grover Cleveland.

Oh, the horror!

*

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

My real beef is with 4), he

My real beef is with 4), he is not just saying Europe should pay for its own defense, he's saying the US should direct Europe's foreign policy and in turn make them pay for it. Not to mention, when you make a move as provocative as moving a defense shield against Russia's border, you unquestionably involve the US and its people in it, should a war happen to break out, god forbid. 4) is real bad news.

"saying the US should direct

"saying the US should direct Europe's foreign policy and in turn make them pay for it"?

It's possible that the US may be pushing Poland and the Czech Republic into the missile shield, but they may honestly want the shield. I prefer that over pushing it to the actual border of Russia -- like Latvia and Ukraine, which the neocons have been calling for.

You should look at a map of Europe before you claim that a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is "against Russia's borders".

If European governments are truly outraged about Russia's violation of the Budapest Memorandum (which European countries signed, along with the US and Russia) by annexing Crimea and supporting separatists in Eastern Ukraine, then European governments should back up their words with some kind of action. That's what Rand is suggesting that Europe should do. If that's "directing Europe's foreign policy", what would be merely diplomacy?

If you prefer absolute principle over positive change, keep doing what the Libertarian Party's been doing for 40 years -- failing to elect anyone to Congress, and therefore not having any real say in foreign policy.

So is #4 true intent or just political maneuvering

In other words, word Europe really pay for it? And if not would he just drop it all together? Possibly playing poker here, but risky move if Europe calls the bluff and pays for it.

this is his character

this shows he is a tyrant

Yea

But considering everybody else before Rand had us foot the bill I see this as a step in the right direction. We may not get perfect the first time around but at lease we can make some gains for liberty for a change.

YES!

Common sense prevails..

Ending aid is a no brainer. Numbers 1 and 2 are fine.

But that's about where I'd stop.

Hell, they VOTED to go back to Russia. The held an election...just like we do here.

It was decided on democratically they tell us.

Probably was done more fairly than our own rotted, 2-party voting fraud system here. But again - WHO CARES?

Here would be the crux my foreign policy; "Let Europe police Europe and let the 7th century fight with the 7th century."

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

I posted the same thing in a comment defending rand

And nobody listened. Apparently we a are rand lover who must not be paying attention to facts

Séamusín

This is brilliant....

Pretty funny. Rand tells everyone we have to get tough, so gives a list that sounds tough to the neocons, but upon analysis, is just reduced spending and opening up our markets.

Hoorah!

who is spreading this text?

I have seen this exact text posted in comments under many different articles. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it makes it seem like there is an organized marketing campaign going on. Did you write this text Galileo? Because is sure seems like you did. If so, you sure get around, with many different user names.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Ed, I wrote it a few days ago

Ed, I wrote it a few days ago and posted it on my facebook page. Then I re-posted it here.

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

thanks for the clarification

I think people have been cutting and pasting it. Take that as a compliment :)

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

hello BILL3. or are you chris tonight?

"I have seen this exact text posted in comments under many different articles."

I have not seen that, but then again, I worked today.

and now we know what you did.

what?

Have you gone off the deep end?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

yes dear. you are off in the deep end.

did you have a question?