Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I heard from Rubio he seems too much an interventionist willing to keep sending Americans off to fight for little reason. Either that or he says what he thinks people want to hear. I'm a devout non-interventionist, I see little/no evidence that our meddling around the world starting with the 1953 Iran coup has offered the US even remotely enough benefit to justify its cost.
I'd vote Webb in a heartbeat but have little hope he'll get even close to the nomination.
I understand your views, many feel similar, and I don't know the answer when it comes to when we should intervene. I don't think anyone does. We need to do anything necessary to keep our country safe but we do not need to be the world police and I certainly don't have the answers. I don't think anyone does. Being a true isolationist won't work either I don't think.
It's very hard for me to even think of a present-day Democrat who believes in reducing, rather than increasing Federal power and influence, and in allowing the markets to settle issues rather than peddling influence to like-minded cronies.
But it wasn't always so; until the Eighties, there was a group of "pragmatist" Democrats, usually from the Western States where Federal influence was more likely to be regarded as a "necessary imperfection" due to some of the "rough edges" of the economy in those areas; they were also, without exception, skeptical toward the further aggrandizement of power within the Beltway, and advocates for a strong defense and foreign policy.
Washington's Henry Jackson was the finest; also Frank Moss, Warren Magnuson, and Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, (who put more common sense into fewer words than anyone else I can think of).
And Connecticut's Governor Ella Grasso was an example of a woman who could lead and administer a state government without polarization; she left us far too soon, and it's interesting to speculate on what might have happed had she gotten her shot at national politics.
But among the present-day collection of big spenders, nanny-staters and Europhiles, I can find little to become even slightly inclined toward. Joe Biden is merely the least-threatening of a very ugly (and downright dangerous) lot.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-21-2015 at 01:07 PM..
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,342 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
I understand your views, many feel similar, and I don't know the answer when it comes to when we should intervene. I don't think anyone does. We need to do anything necessary to keep our country safe but we do not need to be the world police and I certainly don't have the answers. I don't think anyone does. Being a true isolationist won't work either I don't think.
<sigh> If only that idea was the sole basis of our foreign policy............................................
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,342 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
It's very hard for me to even think of a Democrat who believes in reducing, rather than increasing Federal power and influence, and in allowing the markets to settle issues rather than peddling influence to like-minded cronies.
Can you cite an example of a Republican POTUS who has done so in recent history? From what I see the Rs are just as guilty of increasing spending and the size of government when it suits their agenda.
One of the most Disgusting trick Republican party has done to Sen. Rand Paul is to label him as isolationist.
Given that most hawks from both parties considers anything less than constant war to be isolationist, most of us can't hide our isolationism either.
I've volunteered at VA hospital for a little over 1.5 years now, and the more I see, the more I hate wars, fighting other people's wars, America doees not even get the oil. Veterans are not well taken care of. War is pure horror, no benefits.
It is not isolationist to not be in favor of wars of choice that spend trillions of tax-payer dollars and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, both our own and the civilians our weapons inadvertently kill.
You shouldn't have to "hide" what is by all sane standards a reasonable position. These crazy warmongers and people like them need to strap on their boots if they love war and military adventures so much.
Before sending other people's brothers, sons, boyfriends, lovers, cousins, friends to war, look at yourself in the mirror and try to find your own conscience.
Can you cite an example of a Republican POTUS who has done so in recent history? From what I see the Rs are just as guilty of increasing spending and the size of government when it suits their agenda.
Which is why I register Libertarian and vote as an independent; I can find a handful of pragmatic Republicans, but the phrase "sensible Democrat" seems to be a contradiction in basic terms.
And while there are undoubtedly a few somewhere, I can't immediately think of any Republican "nanny-staters".
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-21-2015 at 12:51 PM..
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,342 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
One of the most Disgusting trick Republican party has done to Sen. Rand Paul is to label him as isolationist.
Given that most hawks from both parties considers anything less than constant war to be isolationist, most of us can't hide our isolationism either.
I wish people would learn the difference between isolation and non-intervention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
I've volunteered at VA hospital for a little over 1.5 years now, and the more I see, the more I hate wars, fighting other people's wars, America doees not even get the oil. Veterans are not well taken care of. War is pure horror, no benefits.
It is not isolationist to not be in favor of wars of choice that spend trillions of tax-payer dollars and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, both our own and the civilians our weapons inadvertently kill.
You shouldn't have to "hide" what is by all sane standards a reasonable position. These crazy warmongers and people like them need to strap on their boots if they love war and military adventures so much.
Before sending other people's brothers, sons, boyfriends, lovers, cousins, friends to war, look at yourself in the mirror and try to find your own conscience.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,342 posts, read 54,462,599 times
Reputation: 40756
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
Which is why I register Libertarian and vote as an independent; I can find a handful of pragmatic Republicans, but the phrase "sensible Democrat" seems to be a contradiction in basic terms.
But no cite of a Republican POTUS decreasing spending and size of government, eh?
Dude, I knew you would say this. You're probably one of the most partisan members on this board.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
