Will the Right Wing Bubble Burst?

[_beastie]

I'd add that that there is a very strong case to be made for liberals doing everything in their power right now to ensure that Paul gets to the top of the pile of Republican power. If you don't like the prospect of the Republican party being an insane asylum that marries the religious right with a burning desire for American imperialism and expansive military spending, Paul is your best chance at stopping and reversing that trend through the power of partisan following.

If you are a liberal who would like to see budgetary deficits meaningfully fixed and done so by not leaving military spending as a sacred cow, Paul is your best shot. He's your best shot to see a resurgence of non-interventionism and civil libertarianism from conservatives. A Republican can get significantly reduced military spending and presence through the government for the same reason Obama was able to get Democrats on board with Bush's war on terror policies like domestic spying and indefinite detention without due process. Some of the most strident opposition to it will become relatively muted when the person in charge of their political party is doing it.

I would worry that his economic policies would devastate the poor.

[_EAllusion]

So morality doesn't play into it at all.

No. In fact, your average paleolibertarian like Paul would tell you it is immoral to go to war in most circumstances including the one you go on to describe.

Most of these interventions under Clinton were collaborative efforts with the UN, and the goal was not to "start war," but rather to prevent one or to end an already existing civil war that was leading to genocide. The latter can hardly be called "war mongering."

No one has a goal of using the US military to invade a nation simply to start a war for its own sake. There's always an objective that people are aiming at. Brackite mentioned that Clinton is more pro-war. You say no, because she doesn't want more war, she just feels it is necessary in more circumstances than Paul. If we follow this reasoning to its logical end, then literally no one is more pro-war than the other, since wars are always presented as justified by self-defense or for the well-being of others. However, it's clear what Brackite meant is that Clinton is more likely to be war-like. Which she clearly is. You eventually start responding by acknowledging this, but arguing in favor of military action that Clinton has supported. You throw the peace wing of your own party under the bus, while conceding to what Brackite was trying to say.

And you seem to have trouble understanding that just because I didn't "switch sides" for the reasons you'd prefer, that my conversion is no less sincere or legitimate.

I think you are sincere. I think you have bad habits in how you absorb information and interact with people who disagree that you haven't fixed despite such a radical transformation. You went from being a Rush Limbaugh type to an Ed Schultz type.

Who aspired to expand his career to the national level, which would make his decision to be against Iraq counterproductive.

He aspired to be a Senator from Illinois. His fast-track presidential aspirations came from his DNC speech in 2004. He was positioning himself as the leftwing candidate among Democrats to win the primary for a race that Democrats were strongly favored in 2004. It wasn't just a safe speech to make; it was the smart political territory to stake out. When Clinton dismissed him in the 2008 primary for having simply made a speech, this was the argument. Remember? The counter-argument was that Obama's speech was better than Clinton's actual vote in terms of predicting future behavior. Unfortunately, that didn't pan out as Obama turned out not to be Feingold-lite on war on terror issues like many were hoping, but rather a more aggressive version of Clinton.

OK now that's just dumb.

Iraq's WMD program even its heyday posed no meaningful threat to the United States. You support the first Iraq War as well when Iraq did have a stronger military and a proclivity for using WMD locally. I do not. Nor would Paul, who probably would point out it is that conflict and the US setting up military bases in Saudi Arabia for it that led to 9/11 happening. No Persian Gulf war, no "war on terror" as we know it.

Non-interventionist foreign policy and the arguments for it clearly is very foreign to you. Spend more time reading about peace movements from inside of progressive politics. The reasoning differs somewhat from Paul's isolationism, but there is substantial overlap on the practical side of the arguments.

But in the examples you cite we didn't start war.

If Iran landed troops in the United States, bloodlessly crushed our military with overwhelming force, and controlled who our elected leaders were, something tells me Americans would consider it an act of war. What's awesome is that the United States undermined Hati's democracy due to its socialist character, leading to military coup, then used its military to restore the democracy on the condition that the previously elected leader drop the socialism and adopt the economic policies of the U.S. backed candidate he defeated. The leader we installed ended up being fabulously corrupt and brutal. And on the Constitutional end, sending troops to Hati was strongly opposed by Congress.

Ah, Bill Clinton. Anyway, yes, sending troops to a nation to topple their government is, in fact, engaging in a war regardless of whether you find it justified.

Did we start war in Somalia or was war already present and we were trying to prevent further genocide? Did we start war in Bosnia or did we intervene with NATO after 37 people were senselessly slaughtered?

We joined wars in those circumstances. Yes.

[_EAllusion]

I would worry that his economic policies would devastate the poor.

You don't have to vote for him in a general election. You should ask yourself what kind of trajectory do you want the Republican party on. Democrats have to always work with them and they will inevitably take back the presidency at some point. What do you want the party to look like when that happens? Would you rather it be following the path of Rand Paul or Rick Santorum?

I propose to you that the latter option should be far more scary to you than the former. And further, if you care about fixing our bloated, runaway defense spending, getting Republicans on your side to change it is necessary and a politician like Paul is your best hope at doing that. Paul has the advantage of having the ability to get movement from conservatives on issues that progressives, but not moderate Democrats, care about. There's more than military non-interventionism. The big one for me is opposition to the drug war, which Paul is a highly credible candidate for at a time where my side is as strong as it has been since before Nixon. But there's more. Take the bank bailouts. Remember when TARP passed there was a coalition of libertarianish Ron Paul types and leftwing Bernie Sanders types opposing it? There's actually a fair amount of common ground - a different way to divide up the political space - between those groups. Civil liberties is another example.

I'm arguing that spending your energy supporting him in the primary process is the most efficient means to advancing your political agenda for the nation. It's a way of persuading Republicans to be more friendly to and prioritize positions you care about. And, since it is inevitable that they will take power back, it gives you an opportunity to get real movement on those issues when that happens. With that is going to come reduced social aide, but think of the gains and your alternatives for Republican leadership.

[_ajax18]

I felt I had to do some repenting by arguing against what I used to believe is true. It is very much the same reason why I frequently engage in what LDS defenders like to call "anti-Mormonism."

I know this is off topic Kevin but what do you believe in now when it comes to God and religion?