4 GOP candidates who should run as Democrats

[IceSpear]

>Implying Democrats would want any of these people

[TJ in Oregon]

>Implying Democrats would want any of these people

If you guys took Lincoln Chafee, you'll take anyone.

[ElectionsGuy]

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

Generally speaking, for a few decades now, Republicans have been in favor of more funding for the military, more hawkish towards our enemies, but also less hawkish when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Democrats have been the opposite.

Additionally, Republicans believe that America should be a leader in the world, where as Democrats want us to be a leader at the UN.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats can come together on foreign policy, but when we fight our enemies, it must be from a position of strength, not the position of weakness Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

Can you explain this 'position of weakness' you connect Rand Paul to? He's in favor of a war against ISIS and is more reluctant to cut military spending than other spending. I'm really having trouble with finding evidence that supports your viewpoint.

First of all, Rand Paul opposed Iranian sanctions a few years back and has said he doesn't believe that an armed Iran is bad for the U.S.

Secondly, Rand Paul opposes the Patriot Act, which has enabled our intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist attacks, and he has complained about droning terrorists. He also hurt the U.S. by calling for a declaration of war against ISIS because 1) we already declared a war on terror and 2) He took credibility away from our claim to have moral authority.

1) That's true, but this is now. He does believed an armed Iran is dangerous. He opposed sanctions because we weren't done with diplomacy at that time. Sanctions during negotiation would just piss them off even more and make them more likely to do something against the US.

2) Holy crap, using the constitution instead of warrent-less spying? So weak. And he has complained about the legal authority for the use of drones, mostly relating to Americans. He's actually fine with it being used against terrorists. And what was the declared war on terror? The 2001 declaration to use force against terrorists? That's over a decade old. That already covers the drone warfare in the Middle East, however a broad declaration of force is not a declaration of war. A declaration of war is specific and up to date, that's what needs to be passed by Congress. The president doesn't just have unilateral authority to do that.

You can keep calling Rand Paul weak, just don't ever call yourself a constitutional conservative.

[IceSpear]

>Implying Democrats would want any of these people

If you guys took Lincoln Chafee, you'll take anyone.

How exactly did we "take him" when he gets 0-1% in the polls? Anyone can register with any party they desire.

[SATW]

George Pataki was an amazing governor and is a great republican.

[dudeabides]

>Implying Democrats would want any of these people

Well, let me examine this further.

New York has some of the toughest gun control laws in America because of George Pataki. Pataki also increased taxes on cigarettes, supported rent control, expanded medicaid, signed into law a union-backed health care bill, and he got a $1.76 billion environmental bond act passed by voters. Liberal Democrats look to Hillary Clinton on gun control, the environment, and expanded the role of government in health care and they see someone who is all talk, but Pataki has actually gotten things done for progressive values.

Chris Christie signed into law the Dream Act, expanded medicaid under Obamacare, signed a bill into law which gives tax credits to private companies seeking to have off-shore wind power, has appointed or re-appointed pro-choice judges, and has done nothing to control property taxes in New Jersey, he's increased funding for K-12 education in districts which already receive the majority of school aid. A lot of this is copying what Barack Obama has done in Washington, though granted Christie has not been as damaging as Obama. But, Democrats should view Christie as the Obama-like candidate in this race, not Hillary Clinton.

Very liberal Democrats should love Rand Paul - he's anti-war, for the legalization of marijuana at the state level, is for what he calls "criminal justice reform," has cautioned his own party on voter I.D. laws, and he's for special tax breaks for urban areas. He's running to the left of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on foreign policy.

Trump's anti-free market mentality is similar to that of Former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt.

[All Along The Watchtower]

For the umpteenth time:

liberal =/= libertarian

[Rockefeller GOP]

There is no such thing as left or right on foreign policy.  Period.

[Senator Cris]

And don't forget Ehrlich... he was progressive on some things (education, environment and expecially clemency) and also he is pro-choice. So he should run as a Democrat.

And also... IMHO, the GOP needs more candidates like Pataki, Christie.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

>Implying Democrats would want any of these people

If you guys took Lincoln Chafee, you'll take anyone.

How exactly did we "take him" when he gets 0-1% in the polls? Anyone can register with any party they desire.

a better example would be "if you guys took charlie crist, you'll take anyone"

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

Generally speaking, for a few decades now, Republicans have been in favor of more funding for the military, more hawkish towards our enemies, but also less hawkish when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Democrats have been the opposite.

Additionally, Republicans believe that America should be a leader in the world, where as Democrats want us to be a leader at the UN.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats can come together on foreign policy, but when we fight our enemies, it must be from a position of strength, not the position of weakness Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

Can you explain this 'position of weakness' you connect Rand Paul to? He's in favor of a war against ISIS and is more reluctant to cut military spending than other spending. I'm really having trouble with finding evidence that supports your viewpoint.

Yeah, I've always wondered about this as well. I guess saying we should try not bombing Iran before we bomb them or that maybe we shouldn't give weapons to ISIS, is a position of weakness.

How does one have a "left" foreign policy or a "right" foreign policy?

Generally speaking, for a few decades now, Republicans have been in favor of more funding for the military, more hawkish towards our enemies, but also less hawkish when it comes to humanitarian efforts. Democrats have been the opposite.

Additionally, Republicans believe that America should be a leader in the world, where as Democrats want us to be a leader at the UN.

My hope is that Republicans and Democrats can come together on foreign policy, but when we fight our enemies, it must be from a position of strength, not the position of weakness Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich advocate.

Can you explain this 'position of weakness' you connect Rand Paul to? He's in favor of a war against ISIS and is more reluctant to cut military spending than other spending. I'm really having trouble with finding evidence that supports your viewpoint.

First of all, Rand Paul opposed Iranian sanctions a few years back and has said he doesn't believe that an armed Iran is bad for the U.S.

Secondly, Rand Paul opposes the Patriot Act, which has enabled our intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist attacks, and he has complained about droning terrorists. He also hurt the U.S. by calling for a declaration of war against ISIS because 1) we already declared a war on terror and 2) He took credibility away from our claim to have moral authority.

The authorization of force passed to begin the "war on terror" is not a formal declaration of war. The Constitution requires one. Obama, not Rand or Ron Paul has taken the shredder to our moral authority in taking the fight to the Islamic State. The Patriot Act itself is not in compliance with the strict interpretation of our founding documents. Reagan and Coolidge are weeping in their graves over the gross violations of civil liberties for the sake of "domestic security"

I'm gonna ask you this. Do you believe one should be subjected to the invasive procedures before being allowed to fly? Or allowing the TSA to have naked body scanners? I don't. Israel is much more free in their air travel policies than we are and they have great security procedures in place. Rand is right on this.