Posted on 12/11/2016 8:34:24 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Former Republican presidential candidate and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has a strong opinion on John Bolton's candidacy to serve in Donald Trump's State Department. The former UN ambassador is being considered for the No. 2 spot in the agency, yet Paul argues that Bolton's endorsement of the Iraq War disqualifies him from working in the administration.
“John Bolton doesn’t get it. He still believes in regime change. He’s still a big cheerleader for the Iraq War,” Paul said. “John Bolton is so far out of it and has such a naive understanding of the world.”
Bolton should get "nowhere close" to the State Department, Paul concluded. He is preparing to block Bolton's nomination.
As for the top role in the agency, Trump is likely to tap Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who's facing his own opposition from lawmakers concerned about his business ties with Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Your timeline is off; better check the dates.
“Perhaps if you were better educated, you just might find yourself objecting to and horrified by the nonsense that comes out of the Pauls’ mouths, the idiocy of the LP and ALL of the loser candidates they have ever put up, and the looney paleos and so-called “CONSTITUTIONALISTS” who are and have been all to ready, willing, and able to sh*t all over the Constitution, for their own benefit/agendas.”
There is very little, none actually, that I read from paleos or constitutionalists or the Founding fathers that “horrifies” me, at least with respect to anything related to limited constitutional government. Care to give some examples of paleos, constitutionalists or Pauls defecating on the Constitution?
If Rex is nominated to be SOS, and Bolton for Deputy SOS, why does the Senate have to confirm the Deputy SOS? Isn’t that a #2 position? How many ranks require Senate confirmation?
Cruz shat on the Constitution and then shredded it, by running in the GOP presidential primary, when he KNEW he wasn't qualified to do so.
And as far as other examples, there are far too many to list for you, just because you are uneducated in American political history and don't do your own scut work.
No, I made the comment for any future SOS position. I was out of the loop on Bolton being Deputy pick, which does not need Senate confirm, afaik.
Besides the tinfoil hat, are you wearing a full bodysuit of the stuff?
beat me to it . . .
You shouldn't talk about things you don't know !
“Ron Paul, who ranted and raved and screamed the house down “
I’ve never heard that said about the man. I guess one man’s measured tones and reasoned arguments are another man’s “screaming”?
Paul’s position on earmarks was actually the Constitutional position. He voted against all spending outside of Article 1 Section 8 limits. But he made sure that he constituents were able to get back some of their tax dollars on federal spending projects, since those projects were going to be approved by other Republicans anyway. This is no different than taking the time to explain that Social Security is unconstitutional, but at the same time make sure that his constituents were able to apply for and receive what they had paid into the system.
What’s really funny is that some of the folks in this forum who supported Paul’s house seat primary opponent some years back, complained that Paul should be voted out because he didn’t try to bring more money to the district! Tooo principled! LOL!
If you’ve got a correction to make, why don’t you just say it.
Sorry, my tinfoil got in the way.
OK. I guess I just don’t understand why Rand is getting all worked up about Bolton if, as Deputy, he won’t even need Senate confirmation.
It reminds me of when he went berserk at DJT during the first debate.
Geesh.
“And as far as other examples, there are far too many to list for you, just because you are uneducated in American political history and don’t do your own scut work. “
You implied you were “horrified”. If there are that many examples, just provide one.
Have you considered that perhaps he just did what his boss, the President, told him to do at the time?
Ambassadors are not supposed to set policy on their own - they are supposed to advance the policies set by the government of the United States and the President thereof.
“The CFR waterboy comment still stands”
Careful Theoria. Even though the CFR is a “swamp critter”, you’ll be accused of wearing a tin foil hat for bringing them up.
Rand Paul has many interesting things to say. That said, he essentially doesn’t believe in foreign policy. It is hardly surprising that he would have differences with anyone who does.
Or, more accurately, "Cruz shat on the Constitution and then shredded it, by running in the GOP presidential primary, when -- in my opinion -- he wasn't qualified to do so."
Ron Paul is an unprincipled, bloody HYPOCRITE writ large! He's also a RINO, because he couldn't get elected dog catcher, being one, so ran as a GOPer, took their money, and then mostly sided with the Dems!
Your idol has feet of clay up to his balding dome.
Do your own scut work; you’ll remember it far better, that way, than IF I tell you. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.