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.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I see, you wear a tinfoil BURKA; I should have known. ;^)
I provided one; obviously your reading comprehension skills are bottom of the barrel. Bless your heart.
No, NOT “my opinion”; the opinion of the government of the USA and our Constitution!
Look it up....before you reply.
He is right in the general sense about Iraq being an unneeded disaster.
If Iraq does show that the Middle East can support one Constitution democracy, will Rand still be angry, even though that will encourage its spread? Wouldn’t this be the best way to combat terrorism?
Ergo, your supposed scut work looks to have been nonexistent. Instead, you demand to be spoon fed factual history, which for some reason or other, you aren't cognizant of.
lol, I knew you would miss it because you were too busy being snarky. Notice how I mentioned earlier that I was referencing the time when the current Republicans and Democrats came into power? No? Oops on your part then. Try harder next time
As with all who believe that they are just oh SO very clever and intelligent.....you aren't!
I mention the TWO PARTY SYSTEM, now YOU have egg on your face from that, as well as your claim that the GOP didn't start until the later part of the 19th century.
So Honest Abe is what...nothing, as far as you're concerned? And the year he ran for the presidency and won, was.....? Come on, diddums, you can do it; just try to do it without having to look it up first! LOL
When you step in it, you REALLY step in it! Bless your heart. *snicker*
If it is, indeed, the opinion of the government of the USA and our Constitution, why has it never been enforced? In fact, two people have been elected president despite having only one American citizen parent.
And WHY are you completely ignoring the FACT that twee Teddykins, flat out stated, when he was running for his Senate seat, that a NBC was a person born on AMERICAN soil, whose mother AND father were both citizens of the USA, at the time of said child's birth ?
And FYI....this is the info that is in the study guides, printed by OUR government, handed out to all those who are LEGALLY trying to become citizens of this nation and who are studying for the exam. Also, I know for a certitude, that this info was given to dear Tedddykin's crazy father, when he was studying to become a citizen in 2006!
FURP
Tell me again, Mr. President Rand Paul, how many electoral votes did YOU get?
“You answered your own question. He served about 25 years. Do you think his constituents would have re-elected him if they felt he did not offer constituent services, or speak on behalf of freedom, liberty and the Constitution?”
Actually the correct answer is that he bull$hitted his constituents into believing him. But that’s true for most of our long-tenured politicians. Each of them has some sort of a “hook” into their constituents that keeps them voting for them. A lot of the time it’s skin color or some other mark of discrimination. Then again is may simply be abject stupidity and self-absorption on the part of the constituents.
See the Plum Book.
According to the above, the following are confirmed:
There's a whole lot of appointees that must be confirmed, in other words.
Chester A. Arthur's father was born in the UK and was still a British citizen at the time of his birth. He was the first president who didn't fit your definition.
...it wasn't enforced against Obama, for very obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons. Because he was black? Isn't every other law enforced on blacks? Out of the millions of people who should've known better, nobody even mentioned that there might be a problem...because he was black?
Fact is, nobody even broached the so-called two American parent requirement on Free Republic until December 8, 2008 -- over a month after Obama's election.
And, of course, no legal objection to Cruz's candidacy was eve upheld.
Only three R senators have to turn to threaten a Trump nominee. That is the dynamic he has to work with. If I were Trump I would throw a real red meat nominee out there for the Senate to rail against so some of my marginal picks could slip through.
Most informative. Thanks for posting.
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.