John Bolton is pro-gay marriage and accepts the science behind climate change:
But in foreign policy he makes neocons look like rational creatures, a feat nobody else can manage.
Wow, that really surprises me. As my grandmother used to say, “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”
It shouldn’t really. Basically it makes him Joe Lieberman. Which makes him anathema to both parties but still a voice worth hearing precisely because he’s different.
And frankly, his resume certainly qualifies him to at least seek the Presidency and get a podium at the debates, which I expect he will get.
His war-mongering and history of incredible wrongness makes him (and Joe Lieberman, for that matter) not worth hearing, in my opinion.
What is the difference between Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton? What, she said something once that made you feel better about her, while pursuing the most hawkish possible position from within the Obama administration?
Are you really that gullible? Vote for Rand Paul if you are really that serious about keeping us out of wars, don’t delude yourself into supporting a candidate with a long history of being the most hawkish person in the room. She will say whatever she has to say to mollify the base and you know that. Her record is who she is, not what she says or what she apologizes for.
One is a Democrat.
Like Kerry was the most liberal member of the Senate, right? 
Pursuing the most hawkish position that is possible within the Obama administration still makes her or anyone a peacenik by the standards of America since 2001, and by comparison to Lieberman.
For one thing, Hillary admits she was wrong, and stopped advocating for more war as much (though she’s far from perfect). She doesn’t say ridiculous crap like “we were winning in Iraq”.
Once again (why must I repeat this so often?) – I don’t love Hillary. I don’t particularly like her. I doubt she’ll be a great or even a good president. But the alternative is so, so much worse that it’s a cinch not only that I will vote for her, but I will strongly advocate for her. All of the Republican candidates would be so much more damaging to America that it’s no contest. Hillary’s a C- on the issues and on my expectations, but the Republicans can’t even qualify for an F.
I don’t believe Rand Paul is interested in keeping us out of wars, at least not compared to Hillary. I’ve listened to what he’s said, and I’ve listened to what Hillary has said. And I’ve listed to what their parties have said, and to what their parties have advocated. I very strongly believe a Hillary presidency would be far less likely to get us into war with Iran (or elsewhere) than a Paul presidency, or any other Republican.
Stop stop stop STOP assuming you know what I think or what I know. Please, PLEASE never do that again. Just stop it. Any time you’re about to type “you know that” or similar to me, just stop and delete it. You’re always wrong. You’re always wrong about liberals, and always wrong about me personally. Just stop. Please. Please stop.
“Within the Obama administration” is key. Who will be her boss when she’s President? It’s not like she has to please the doves anymore once she’s actually President. What will they do, vote Republican?
What exactly was Libya? Or the many bombings carried out by the Clinton administration?
Please state reasoning that makes sense. You say that your number one issue is keeping us out of war. So you support a candidate with her fingerprints on several? Name one war she’s opposed. WAs she against Syria intervention? Is she against bombing ISIS? Was she against Kosovo? Was she against the IRaq war? Afghanistan? How about the Afghanistan surge? Libya? The HAiti invasion that was only averted at the last second?
Make sense, please.
Much as I hate to defend Joe Lieberman, no it doesn’t. Lieberman was a hippie-punching contrarian-for-contrarianism’s-sake, but he wasn’t a crackpot. Bolton is a crackpot.
A limited operation in which no American soldiers were killed. Might have been stupid, but its costs were miniscule in relation to the costs of the war in Iraq (or a potential war with Iran or even ground troops fighting with ISIS).
Doesn’t affect my potential vote in 2016 one iota. There’s plenty to judge Hillary on – Bill Clinton’s foreign policy is so low on the list as to be useless.
Based on what individual candidates, parties, and party leadership has stated and advocated for, I am extremely confident that a Hillary presidency would be far less likely to lead us into war than a presidency from any of the Republican candidates. It’s not even close. Based on what he and his party have said, especially recently, Paul would be far, far more likely to get us into war than Hillary.
Hillary sucks on war, but the Republicans, including Paul, suck way, way worse. A million times worse.
So you’re voting Democrat, whether or not the Republican candidate has a better record on keeping us out of war.
That sounds like rationalization more than anything. And sure, I agree that the Democratic way of waging war means less Americans killed. It also leaves open the option of failure, as we’re seeing now with ISIS. But now at least you’re making some sense on some level. Rand Paul would be less likely to get us into war, but if we did go to war, Paul would FIGHT THE WAR. Whereas Hillary would drop a bunch of bombs, launch a bunch of missiles, and then run away as soon as a plane got shot down.
None of the Republican candidates has a record of “keeping us out of war.”
This is moving the goal posts, since you were comparing her to Lieberman then we will have to assume that you agree with **iiandyiiii **on what he told us about him and Hillary.
Or indeed you can not reply to him and you have to “move along” and hope that no one notices the move.
…
I can see that he is making sense here, but as it is usually the case, you are not.
Ben Carson thinks… well, I’ll let him speak for himself:
What plausible Republican candidate(s) are you referring to?
It’s realism. No, Clinton is far from perfect as a prospective president - but so is every other human being on the planet.
And if that really does matter as much to you as you suggest, that’s enough reason for you to reconsider your loyalties.
“Bomb, bomb Iran” is not a Democratic strategy.
There is no Republican candidate with a “better record” on keeping us out of war. Paul’s record (at least as far as a potential presidency goes) includes his most recent statements and what his party’s leadership has advocated. Taking all that into account, his record is far, far worse on potential wars of the future.
The “Republican way” means more Americans killed and much more failure. You still don’t get that it’s possible to believe that going into Iraq again (or Iran for the first time) would make things much worse in the long run.
No, he’d be more likely to get us into war, and if he got us into war, he’d be more likely to stay and get more Americans killed. Because he’s a Republican, and because of what he’s said.
Hillary would be less likely to get us into a war, and if she did get us into war, more likely to get us out of it.
More war in this region would make everything worse. More dead Americans, more wasted money, more failure in every aspect. Everything would get worse for America and Americans with more war, and nothing would get better. Yes, it would really be that bad. War would do no good things in the long run.
I served during the last debacle. I was fortunate enough not to be sent into ground combat, but I did serve at sea in anti-terrorism missions. The Iraq war was the biggest disaster in recent American history. War with Iran would be even worse.
Bombing would be. Actually winning, well, that’s more hope. But if the Clinton administration was willing to bomb a European country and Russian ally, you can bet they’d be willing to bomb a poor Asian country with no allies.
See, here’s what gets to me about “you people”(Democrats). It’s hard to argue about a candidate’s stances when they actually have two: their official stance(all options are on the table, Iran WILL NOT get a nuclear weapon, we will use force to prevent that), from their “real” stance. We saw it on gay marriage too. It has to stop. Either the candidates are who they say they are and you should defend who they say they are, or they are lying, in which case there is no defense for them whatsoever that can be made on a discussion board that claims to exist to fight ignorance.
Are there any Republicans in the field where we’re arguing that they don’t really mean what they say they mean?