Would you vote for Rand Paul For President?

[Matty]

Would you vote for Rand Paul for President?

[Cigar]

You're kidding right?

[Kurmugeon]

Only if I knew beyond all reasonable doubt, that a vote for Rand Paul would not just put another Democrat into office.

-

[The Xl]

Probably not, but not for the reasons the neocons and liberals wouldn't.

[Matty]

Probably not, but not for the reasons the neocons and liberals wouldn't.
Well, why then?

[Cigar]

Only if I knew beyond all reasonable doubt, that a vote for Rand Paul would not just put another Democrat into office.

-

What Cheat :laugh:

[The Xl]

Well, why then?

He's morphing into an establishment candidate more and more, day by day.

[Mac-7]

If Rand Paul wins the GOP nomination I will vote for him in the general election.

[birddog]

Rand would make a great President!

[Mac-7]

Rand would make a great President!

Will you vote for him in the primary?

[nathanbforrest45]

Rand Paul, NEVER. We need a man of integrity in office. Someone who will look out for all of America. Someone with balls. Someone who believes in the individual. We need Hillary.

[Kurmugeon]

What Cheat :laugh:

No, that's a Democrat tactic.

I've got too much respect for the LAW, democracy, and my own Honor to ever cheat at an election.

But having Rand Paul receive the Republican Nomination would be one very good way to be sure that it is not just a wasted vote. He still might not win, with the Democrats massive voter fraud machine, but it would then be a clear decision.

There are other valid scenarios. If the polling for the Libertarian Candidate showed a clear advantage over the Republican, for instance.

If it was clear that the Democrats were going to cheat at levels that could not be stopped or practically overcome, would be another.

At some point, various people will start watching closely, and assassinating Democratic Fraud Voters whenever found. It will not continue as it has...

-

[PolWatch]

I don't know enough about his platform to decide now...ask again in about 16 months. I have nothing against him at this point.

[Matty]

Rand Paul, NEVER. We need a man of integrity in office. Someone who will look out for all of America. Someone with balls. Someone who believes in the individual. We need Hillary.
Did you forget your meds this morning? Hildebeast? No way.

[Matty]

I don't know enough about his platform to decide now...ask again in about 16 months. I have nothing against him at this point.
Well, except he ran away from his burger and fries!

[PolWatch]

that sounds like a smart idea! fight obesity in America...out run fast food!

[Kurmugeon]

Will you vote for him in the primary?

If given the choice, probably. Unless the Republican Party has a better candidate, which I think is unlikely.

-

[Matty]

Personally I hope Marco Rubio decides to go in 2016. But if it's Paul I will vote for him.

[Mac-7]

I don't know enough about his platform to decide now...ask again in about 16 months. I have nothing against him at this point.

If Rand Paul has a simple clear agenda then he will be better off than if he focus groups every issei and tries to be all things to all people.

so simple that everyone knows what it is.

[Mac-7]

If given the choice, probably. Unless the Republican Party has a better candidate, which I think is unlikely.

-

As you say it depends on the other candidates.

the problem is what will the libertarian Rand Paul fanatics do if he doesn't get nominated.

[Matty]

As you say it depends on the other candidates.

the problem is what will the libertarian Rand Paul fanatics do if he doesn't get nominated.
They will vote democrat to punish the GOP for not providing them with THE PERFECT candidate.

[Kurmugeon]

Personally I hope Marco Rubio decides to go in 2016. But if it's Paul I will vote for him.

I like Bobby Jindal personally. He's on a down turn now, but I think he has great potential. His PR skills shown during the Katrina debacle were impressive. He is far less divisive and more centrist than many Republican Options. VP maybe?

-

[Ethereal]

As you say it depends on the other candidates.

the problem is what will the libertarian Rand Paul fanatics do if he doesn't get nominated.

Rand Paul had already lost their support by bowing to the treacherous Israeli lobby.

[Chris]

Rand is not libertarian enough. Perhaps that was my expectation based on his father. He's also not Tea Party enough, not the same person who wrote The Tea Party Goes to Washington.

[Ethereal]

They will vote democrat to punish the GOP for not providing them with THE PERFECT candidate.

Nonsense. Real libertarians would never vote for Hillary.

[Matty]

Nonsense. Real libertarians would never vote for Hillary.
A third party vote is a vote for democrats. Enjoy!

[Kurmugeon]

Nonsense. Real libertarians would never vote for Hillary.

Exactly. With the Democratic Party having morphed into Progressive-Fascists, and become corrupt to the core, there are few independents and Libertarians who would support them. No TEA Patriot would vote for Hilary.

Regardless, the next Presidential Election will hinge on two things, Republican Turnout, and Stopping Democratic Fraud.

-

[Matty]

He is a fear mongerer too!



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-rand-paul-says-dangers-of-ebola-are-downplayed/

[Mister D]

He's morphing into an establishment candidate more and more, day by day.

That was one of the problems with the perception of Obama. No single man is going to take on the system. It's not going to happen. Obama, for example, got bitch slapped by reality. Yeah, it's real historic and shit...just smile and do what you're told. More people like Rand need to be elected to Congress, Governorships etc. Later on, to the Presidency.

[Mister D]

Rand Paul had already lost their support by bowing to the treacherous Israeli lobby.

That's another issue. There have to be more courageous voices calling that lobby what it is.

[Ethereal]

A third party vote is a vote for democrats. Enjoy!

Sorry, but libertarians don't vote non libertarians. That's why we're libertarians. If you want our vote, then nominate a libertarian, otherwise don't expect our support.

[Mister D]

And fewer of these "conservative" idiots willing to defend the forces working to destroy what they're trying to conserve.

[nic34]

Rand and Ron both would eventually have to bend to big $$$ as well. No one is immune.

[Mister D]

Rand and Ron both would eventually have to bend to big $$$ as well. No one is immune.

On their own, I agree. That was my point above.

[Mac-7]

Rand Paul had already lost their support by bowing to the treacherous Israeli lobby.

Oh.

The libertarians are impossible to please.

[nic34]

Presidents are more about judicial appointments these days, even that is a problem. Judicial activism on all sides.

[Matty]

Sorry, but libertarians don't vote non libertarians. That's why we're libertarians. If you want our vote, then nominate a libertarian, otherwise don't expect our support.


Republican nominate Republicans. Who is the libertarian party gonna run?

[Matty]

Oh.

The libertarians are impossible to please.
Correct.

[Ethereal]

That's another issue. There have to be more courageous voices calling that lobby what it is.

I won't be satisfied until they admit their true role in the USS Liberty incident and reveal who was behind it (LBJ).

[nic34]

I won't be satisfied until they admit their true role in the USS Liberty incident and reveal who was behind it (LBJ).

Yes, VN was the wrong war.

[Mac-7]

Sorry, but libertarians don't vote non libertarians. That's why we're libertarians. If you want our vote, then nominate a libertarian, otherwise don't expect our support.

But in 2012 libertarians who supported Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would not mind if republicans has voted for them.

sort of heads you win tails we lose.

[Chris]

Nonsense. Real libertarians would never vote for Hillary.



But "real" Repubs will lie and tell you you will. Why just a little while one told me I would because I advise voting 3rd party or not voting at all.

[Ethereal]

Rand and Ron both would eventually have to bend to big $$$ as well. No one is immune.

Ron never compromised his principles in all his years. He's a rock.

[Chris]

A third party vote is a vote for democrats. Enjoy!

How's that?

Say I vote thus:

D 0
R 0
3 1

How does that end up as

D +1
R -1
3 0

[Ethereal]

Oh.

The libertarians are impossible to please.

No, just consistent and principled.

[Ethereal]

Republican nominate Republicans. Who is the libertarian party gonna run?

Nominate whoever you want, just don't expect libertarians to vote for them if they aren't libertarian.

[Kurmugeon]

Ron never compromised his principles in all his years. He's a rock.

Maybe, but he gives the perception of having a bigotry problem, which in America today, is all that it takes to be defeated.

Rand has a much better perception in that regard, and I'm not sure why?

Perhaps Rand has simply never gotten in the way of a Democrat, to end up being smeared with false accusations.

-

[Ethereal]

Yes, VN was the wrong war.

There hasn't been a right war since Madison was president.

[Chris]

Rand and Ron both would eventually have to bend to big $$$ as well. No one is immune.

Not Ron, Rand, maybe, but not Ron. He never gave in. He's still fighting the good fight: http://www.voicesofliberty.com/

[Chris]

Republican nominate Republicans. Who is the libertarian party gonna run?


Libertarian Party and libertarian are not the same just as Republican Party and conservative, Democrat Party and liberal are not.

[Chris]

Maybe, but he gives the perception of having a bigotry problem, which in America today, is all that it takes to be defeated.

Rand has a much better perception in that regard, and I'm not sure why?

Perhaps Rand has simply never gotten in the way of a Democrat, to end up being smeared with false accusations.

-


The bigotry thing was invented by liberals whi may have included politicians in the Republican Party.

[Kurmugeon]

There hasn't been a right war since Madison was president.

Are you saying that Lincoln was wrong to fight for the Union?

-

[Kurmugeon]

The bigotry thing was invented by liberals whi may have included politicians in the Republican Party.

Agreed, but it worked.

Negative ads and the race card work, unfortunately.

-

[Mac-7]

But "real" Repubs will lie and tell you you will. Why just a little while one told me I would because I advise voting 3rd party or not voting at all.

You told us you are not going to vote.

that makes you the most useless appendage in politics.

[Chris]

You told us you are not going to vote.

that makes you the most useless appendage in politics.

And you lied and said I said I was voting for Hillary just like you did Ethereal. What's that make you?

[Ethereal]

Are you saying that Lincoln was wrong to fight for the Union?

-

Lincoln was the worst president in American history.

[Kurmugeon]

Lincoln was the worst president in American history.

I have mixed feelings on Lincoln. I like his stand on Slavery, except that he admitted himself, he didn't really stand on his position. If he could have re-united the union without freeing the slaves, but avoided the civil war, he would have done so.

He certainly failed to respect the Southern States rights for self-determination.

He created the single most bloody period in American History.

Yet, slavery, the worst element of America, which would have come to the fore in another era, in the end, was ended by Lincoln's actions.

If America had kept slavery into the Industrial Revolution and through to the first world war, America would likely have been to per-occupied with internal strife to have joined WWI, and the Germans would have won.

A similar argument can be made about WWII.

The "War of Northern Aggression" was not about slavery, but it solved the slavery problem.

Personally, think that Obama is the worst President in American History, by a wide margin.

I think that President Wilson was the worst President prior to Obama, and for much the same reasons that Obama is a bad President.

My favorite President, and American Political figure has always been Washington. He is under appreciated.

-

[Mac-7]

And you lied and said I said I was voting for Hillary just like you did Ethereal. What's that make you?

What I said was the you supported Hillary as the next president.

i had not heard the you refuse to vote.

but I think your tribe of idealistic 2% libertarian perfectionists are all working in different ways to assist the democrats.

[PolWatch]

did it ever occur to you that they might be working to assist America? If enough people refuse to accept second class products, someone might actually get the hint & change?

[Kurmugeon]

What I said was the you supported Hillary as the next president.

i had not heard the you refuse to vote.

but I think your tribe of idealistic 2% libertarian perfectionists are all working in different ways to assist the democrats.

Don't paint all Libertarians with the same brush.

Today, despite decades ago proudly calling myself a "Liberal", meaning what is today, a "Classic Liberal", in the traditions of Thomas Jefferson and JFK, and still being a registered Democrat, ....

I would say that I am a Libertarian-Right with heavy TEA Patriot leanings.

I am also Pragmatic. I understand that the Power of the Progressive-Fascists must be broken, utterly, and quickly, if America is to have any hope of survival as a free country.

That means, vote for who ever has the best chance of defeating the Democrat.

-

[Mac-7]

did it ever occur to you that they might be working to assist America? If enough people refuse to accept second class products, someone might actually get the hint & change?

I think the 2% malcontents are helping the democrats.

[Chris]

What I said was the you supported Hillary as the next president.

i had not heard the you refuse to vote.

but I think your tribe of idealistic 2% libertarian perfectionists are all working in different ways to assist the democrats.


Still lying. Pathetic.

[Chris]

did it ever occur to you that they might be working to assist America? If enough people refuse to accept second class products, someone might actually get the hint & change?

Exactly.

I would vote again if NOTA was placed on the ballot and it was binding such that if NOTA won, the parties would have to reboot and renominate. After they'd wasted a few billions, they'd learn.

[Matty]

I think the 2% malcontents are helping the democrats.
Yes, they don't know yet that perfect dosen't exist. I have talked to Peter numerous times. His libertarian goal is to punish the Republicans for not producing the perfect candidate and to let the democrats skate. Now to me that equates to helping the democrats win. There is no other way to see it.

[Chris]

Don't paint all Libertarians with the same brush.

Today, despite decades ago proudly calling myself a "Liberal", meaning what is today, a "Classic Liberal", in the traditions of Thomas Jefferson and JFK, and still being a registered Democrat, ....

I would say that I am a Libertarian-Right with heavy TEA Patriot leanings.

I am also Pragmatic. I understand that the Power of the Progressive-Fascists must be broken, utterly, and quickly, if America is to have any hope of survival as a free country.

That means, vote for who ever has the best chance of defeating the Democrat.

-

I can appreciate that, and the fact you're thinking and articulate and not just slinging slogans.

I just don't see establishment Reps as much different than Dems, neither are classical liberal, both are progressive.

[PolWatch]

don't worry Matalese...I'm still gonna vote for you!

[Chris]

Yes, they don't know yet that perfect dosen't exist. I have talked to Peter numerous times. His libertarian goal is to punish the Republicans for not producing the perfect candidate and to let the democrats skate. Now to me that equates to helping the democrats win. There is no other way to see it.

Perfections? Madison said it best: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

[Matty]

don't worry Matalese...I'm still gonna vote for you!
Thank you, I'm a shoo in!

[PolWatch]

all ya need are some big $$$ donors & you would be a shoo-in!

[Common Sense]

If Rand Paul wins the GOP nomination I will vote for him in the general election.

If a stale loaf of bread was nominated you'd vote for it.

[PolWatch]

If a stale loaf of bread was nominated you'd vote for it.

and if it ran in Alabama..it would win!

[Mac-7]

If a stale loaf of bread was nominated you'd vote for it.

When the choice is stale bread or poisoned bread that's going to kill me I'll take the loaf that only slightly less than perfect.

[Kurmugeon]

I can appreciate that, and the fact you're thinking and articulate and not just slinging slogans.

I just don't see establishment Reps as much different than Dems, neither are classical liberal, both are progressive.

Yes, but if either is given too much time to amass power and embed corruption, we'll end as a fascist slave state.

The Democrats, over the Obama Era, have been allowed to get away with far, far, far too much corruption and abuse of official power; IRS, DOJ, DEA, NSA, DOE, EPA, CDC ... is there any function of government the Progressive-Fascists haven't abused and corrupted.

I'll give the Republicans kudoos for their being willing to clean up their own, when caught. Nixon was forced to resign. Many other Republicans who have abused power, have been held accountable, often most aggressively by Republicans.

Then there is the Democrats List of Shame: Eric Holder, Barrack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelocy, Kathleen Sebelius, Susan Rice, Steven Chu, Robert Menedez, Louis Lerner, Barny Frank, Rohm Emaneul, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Janet Napolitano, Gregory Meeks, Rob Andrews, Patrick Cannon, Ray Nagin, Tony Mack, Bob Filner, Kwame Kilpatrick, William Scarborough, Leland Yee, Keith Farnham, Ben Bernanke, Charlie Rangel... Good Gods, the list is so long, I could be here all night!

Its not that the Republicans are not prone to corruption, all politicians are, power corrupts, including Libertarians!

Its that the Democratic Party no longer has the slightest bit of SHAME at corruption!

The Democrats must be stopped, first!, then worry about the little stuff.

-

[Common Sense]

When the choice is stale bread or poisoned bread that's going to kill me I'll take the loaf that only slightly less than perfect.

The choice is a stale loaf of bread or a person who you disagree with politically (or to you, someone who is, derp...stoopid).

[del]

the last time we elected a first term senator certainly worked out well.

i think paul is every bit as qualified

[The Xl]

A third party vote is a vote for democrats. Enjoy!

A vote for Republicans is effectively a vote for Democrats.

[Mac-7]

A vote for Republicans is effectively a vote for Democrats.

Thats what democrat sympathizers want the idealists to believe.

[Chris]

Yes, but if either is given too much time to amass power and embed corruption, we'll end as a fascist slave state.

The Democrats, over the Obama Era, have been allowed to get away with far, far, far too much corruption and abuse of official power; IRS, DOJ, DEA, NSA, DOE, EPA, CDC ... is there any function of government the Progressive-Fascists haven't abused and corrupted.

I'll give the Republicans kudoos for their being willing to clean up their own, when caught. Nixon was forced to resign. Many other Republicans who have abused power, have been held accountable, often most aggressively by Republicans.

Then there is the Democrats List of Shame: Eric Holder, Barrack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelocy, Kathleen Sebelius, Susan Rice, Steven Chu, Robert Menedez, Louis Lerner, Barny Frank, Rohm Emaneul, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Janet Napolitano, Gregory Meeks, Rob Andrews, Patrick Cannon, Ray Nagin, Tony Mack, Bob Filner, Kwame Kilpatrick, William Scarborough, Leland Yee, Keith Farnham, Ben Bernanke, Charlie Rangel... Good Gods, the list is so long, I could be here all night!

Its not that the Republicans are not prone to corruption, all politicians are, power corrupts, including Libertarians!

Its that the Democratic Party no longer has the slightest bit of SHAME at corruption!

The Democrats must be stopped, first!, then worry about the little stuff.

-



Yes, but if either is given too much time to amass power and embed corruption, we'll end as a fascist slave state.

Thus both should be booted to the curb.

[The Xl]

Thats what democrat sympathizers want the idealists to believe.

No, it's pretty much the exact truth. Effectively the same on corporatism, interventionism, civil liberties, etc.

[Kurmugeon]

Thus both should be booted to the curb.

Not going to happen! You can take one at a time out of power, by voting for the other side, but no Libertarian Candidate will defeat a primary two party system candidate, in any but a suddenly disgraced front runner scenario.

If you vote Libertarian, you're insuring that the Democrats gain enough power to get a choke hold on the country.

The 2016 election MUST be about destroying the corrupt Democrats!

-

[Chris]

Not going to happen! You can take one at a time out of power, by voting for the other side, but no Libertarian Candidate will defeat a primary two party system candidate, in any but a suddenly disgraced front runner scenario.

If you vote Libertarian, you're insuring that the Democrats gain enough power to get a choke hold on the country.

The 2016 election MUST be about destroying the corrupt Democrats!

-

Not going to happen if you and other keep believing that and telling other you must vote for the lesser of two evils and voting third party means voting something else.

Republican Party was once a third party, don't forget. It happens.

[Kurmugeon]

Not going to happen if you and other keep believing that and telling other you must vote for the lesser of two evils and voting third party means voting something else.

Republican Party was once a third party, don't forget. It happens.

I can count!

-

[texan]

He's morphing into an establishment candidate more and more, day by day.

You have to do that to win. See Obama.

[Ethereal]

The last republican president was a big government progressive. Not surprising, because it was the republican party that started big government progressive politics in America.

[Animal Mother]

I'd vote for him if for no other reason than to spite the dems. He seems to make them shit the bed and bed shitting is funny.

[Mac-7]

The last republican president was a big government progressive.

But the democrat who replaced bush was bigger government and more lib, aka "progressive."

There is no perfect answer since many conservatives uncritically supported bush and many liberals are uncritically supporting Obama.

however moving forward the republican base is far more critical of their leadership so republicans offer the most hope for the future.

[GrassrootsConservative]

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130603154503/rio/images/c/cf/1778756-oh_look_its_this_thread_again.jpg

No, no no. No no no no no no no no. The apple has fallen way too far away from the tree.

[Kurmugeon]

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130603154503/rio/images/c/cf/1778756-oh_look_its_this_thread_again.jpg

No, no no. No no no no no no no no. The apple has fallen way too far away from the tree.

Then why are you here?

[Chris]

Here's the thing I don't get: If I were a partisan Republican I would go out of my way to be persuasive and get people to vote Republican. The way to do that with reasonable, rational people is through reasonable, rational discussion, not ridicule, put downs, name calling, baiting. Want votes? Earn them with respect.

[Bob]

Here's the thing I don't get: If I were a partisan Republican I would go out of my way to be persuasive and get people to vote Republican. The way to do that with reasonable, rational people is through reasonable, rational discussion, not ridicule, put downs, name calling, baiting. Want votes? Earn them with respect.

I have tried doing that all over forums. I got to the point no matter who you want to vote for, I give an opinion but simply don't care who you vote for. I never saw any poster come back and say, thank you, I changed my mind.

[Bob]

The last republican president was a big government progressive. Not surprising, because it was the republican party that started big government progressive politics in America.

Actually he was not, but still I know why you claim that. FDR is the true father of big government.

As I try to explain this, you have the public making demands.

If the public says no way, you lost.

What do Democrats pride themselves on so much?

Big Government tax's you until you bleed and shit on you.

I don't vote for Democrats because they are flat out crooks.

You will not find an organized party that is not well aware of the promises they must give to the public. This all took place following FDR or during him is accurate. Before him, the public was not as partisan nor did they see government as their savior. Democrats sold the public on the idea they save us. They still will brag they saved us from depressions and a lot of the public falls for that lie.

[Bob]

Not going to happen if you and other keep believing that and telling other you must vote for the lesser of two evils and voting third party means voting something else.

Republican Party was once a third party, don't forget. It happens.

I am eager to find a third party that actually can win. They can't get past the total rejection by the majority of the public. I don't vote if I plan to piss off a vote on some third party. It is a blasted waste of time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPIVI0CbCmg

[Mac-7]

I have tried doing that all over forums. I got to the point no matter who you want to vote for, I give an opinion but simply don't care who you vote for. I never saw any poster come back and say, thank you, I changed my mind.

I think Chris just wants attention.

he told us he will not vote for anyone so what is the point throwing flowers and candy at his feet?

[Mac-7]

I give an opinion but simply don't care who you vote for. I never saw any poster come back and say, thank you, I changed my mind.

Me too.

libs are unreachable no matter what you say to them.

[gamewell45]

Would you vote for Rand Paul for President?

No. He does not represent my best interests.

[Kurmugeon]

At this point, I'm less voting for the guy I want, but voting for who ever it seems can defeat the Democrat. America needs the Progressive-Fascists gone.

-

[texan]

I would, not saying I am but I am interested in what he has to say. I will say if he connects with the college type like his father and crosses over so to speak walking a fine line he could be dangerous.

[Kurmugeon]

I would, not saying I am but I am interested in what he has to say. I will say if he connects with the college type like his father and crosses over so to speak walking a fine line he could be dangerous.

Would you prefer Hilary?

Because its looking like that will be your other choice.

Not that I think Rand Paul will get the Republican Nomination, but, if it were to happen, and you had to chose between them?

-

[Chris]

I am eager to find a third party that actually can win. They can't get past the total rejection by the majority of the public. I don't vote if I plan to piss off a vote on some third party. It is a blasted waste of time.

...


Eager but a waste of time? Doesn't make sense.

[Chris]

I think Chris just wants attention.

he told us he will not vote for anyone so what is the point throwing flowers and candy at his feet?


At least I don't try to get attention by lying like you, mac. Because of your lying you'll never persuade me to anything.


To be honest I think you're another phoney conservative Rep planted just to make them look bad. You won't last long.

[Chris]

I have tried doing that all over forums. I got to the point no matter who you want to vote for, I give an opinion but simply don't care who you vote for. I never saw any poster come back and say, thank you, I changed my mind.


The Xl helped convince me not to vote for Rand Paul.

But if you're so convinced you can't change people's minds, why do you try so hard?

Are you a determinist?

[Chris]

Would you prefer Hilary?

Because its looking like that will be your other choice.

Not that I think Rand Paul will get the Republican Nomination, but, if it were to happen, and you had to chose between them?

-


The old lesser of two evils Hillary argument is worn out.

[Animal Mother]

@The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) helped convince me not to vote for Rand Paul.

But if you're so convinced you can't change people's minds, why do you try so hard?

Are you a determinist?

That's kind of lovely that you and XL believe there's a perfect candidate out there that if you just vote for them they'll change things.

I can understand not voting because you're an anarchist but if you're a minarchist and you don't vote in an election or primary where our choices are Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton then you're basically saying, I'll let my minarchist ego override any goddamn sense I have about how to slow the momentum of big government fuckery.

No, he isn't his father. Yes, he is saying some pro-Israel things but he's still the guy introducing legislation that will remove mandatory minimums something XL has pretended for years he cares about and will end racist policies that hurt black people. He's also the guy putting out legislation to stop the asset forfeiture, end drones, repeal aspects of the NDAA, and all this other shit you guys keep saying you like.

It's about momentum and slowing it until someone can get in that you do like which could be years without showing the country that someone with libertarian leanings won't destroy it. The older generation is not ready for a Ron Paul or Justin Amash yet.

So unless you're up for revolution which I doubt either of you are your fake principles on this do nothing but help contribute to the problem. You're going to sit on the Internet and talk Hayak and how both parties are the same and feel like masters of the universe for being above it all while we put in progressive candidates.

That's just great guys.

[nathanbforrest45]

Actually Bob, the first progressive president was a Republican, it was Teddy Roosevelt. Which just goes to show the D and the R has never meant much in the long run. I think both sides try to walk as much in the middle as possible. Just like American beer is crafted with a mild flavor so as to appeal to as many beer drinkers as possible (its not too hot and its not to cold, its just riiiiiight) politicians will walk as fine a line as possible so they can get those all important "independent" voters. You know, the ones who think nothing is ever black and white.

[Perianne]

If he is the Republican nominee for President, I will probably vote for him. But as of now I am not sold on him even though I voted for him for my Senator.

[donttread]

Would you vote for Rand Paul for President?

Absolutely. It looks like Rand is winning your poll to.

[Animal Mother]

The old lesser of two evils Hillary argument is worn out.

What BS, this is about momentum. You have potentially two identical people and a country that is so afraid of its own shadow that it won't trust something new. Rand Paul is just a step towards libertarianism. If he's president and the country stays course with minor changes you'll get a libertarian in a future election.

It's about training the population.

[Chris]

What BS, this is about momentum. You have potentially two identical people and a country that is so afraid of its own shadow that it won't trust something new. Rand Paul is just a step towards libertarianism. If he's president and the country stays course with minor changes you'll get a libertarian in a future election.

It's about training the population.

Rand has pretty much said he's not libertarian. Constitutional conservativd or something like that, and too much of an interventionist.

[Refugee]

Me, I'll vote with my feet. Sounds like a sort of cop out, but whoever we vote for and wherever we vote, the results are the same. It's no longer even about politics, but which millionaires turn it is to screw society. Yes, it sounds cynical, but I believe that's what most people are now.

[Animal Mother]

Rand has pretty much said he's not libertarian. Constitutional conservativd or something like that, and too much of an interventionist.

Right which is why your and XLs comments about him make little sense. Who is he betraying if he's not a libertarian?

He is what he said he was, a Republican with libertarian leanings. Think of him as a tricycle. He will train the country in what to do with an actual libertarian at the helm. If he brings in 2-3 libertarian things then it sets a precedence for the future.

OR you can do nothing, talk him down, and let one of two full on progressives win the next election and ensure that things will never change.

[KC]

A year or two ago I might have. I still think he's a better pick than Hillary, or most of the neo cons in the GOP for that matter. But I'm not crazy about him and will likely vote third party anyhow.

[Chris]

That's kind of lovely that you and XL believe there's a perfect candidate out there that if you just vote for them they'll change things.

I can understand not voting because you're an anarchist but if you're a minarchist and you don't vote in an election or primary where our choices are Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton then you're basically saying, I'll let my minarchist ego override any goddamn sense I have about how to slow the momentum of big government fuckery.

No, he isn't his father. Yes, he is saying some pro-Israel things but he's still the guy introducing legislation that will remove mandatory minimums something XL has pretended for years he cares about and will end racist policies that hurt black people. He's also the guy putting out legislation to stop the asset forfeiture, end drones, repeal aspects of the NDAA, and all this other shit you guys keep saying you like.

It's about momentum and slowing it until someone can get in that you do like which could be years without showing the country that someone with libertarian leanings won't destroy it. The older generation is not ready for a Ron Paul or Justin Amash yet.

So unless you're up for revolution which I doubt either of you are your fake principles on this do nothing but help contribute to the problem. You're going to sit on the Internet and talk Hayak and how both parties are the same and feel like masters of the universe for being above it all while we put in progressive candidates.

That's just great guys.

Has to do with education.

Libertarians running for office is antithetical unless they're for tearing down government like Ron Paul.

I don't see any candidate promising that, just some who might slow the rate of government growth.

[Chris]

Back to momentum. That's voting 3rd party. Libertarian Party is making advances. If we could just open up debates to them but they're locked up by the GOP & DNC.

[Animal Mother]

Has to do with education.

And not everyone learns from reading books, most people don't have time for that shit. They need to see practical applications of ideas. No offense, but you're kind of a nerd. This is plain to see from your posts. Most people are not like you, they need a reality experience.

It took Obama to make people read for a black or female president. It could take a Rand Paul to make people ready for a Ron Paul.




Libertarians running for office is antithetical unless they're for tearing down government like Ron Paul.


And libertarians complaining about progressives is hypocritical unless they're planning on doing something proactive and/or pragmatic about it.



I don't see any candidate promising that, just some who might slow the rate of government growth.

Exactly and right now we're at the brink of totalitarianism, at the fucking brink, and you guys want to complain about Rand Paul and will take your "principled" vote or nonvote to someone who won't win so we can ensure that Hillary or Jeb is our next president. That's like Frodo dropping the ring off at the gates of Mordor with a nice holiday card.

No, Rand is not a libertarian, but he can be the guy that vetos the fucks in Congress and will do some things that will slow the momentum. He is still Ron Paul's son and if you guys don't think some of that rubbed off you're a bunch of snobs.

[Animal Mother]

Back to momentum. That's voting 3rd party. Libertarian Party is making advances. If we could just open up debates to them but they're locked up by the GOP & DNC.

If only! If only people would rise up and march against Washington in the millions. If only people would write their Senators daily. If only people were more active. If only Megan Fox would leave her husband for me.

The system is embedded and is fixed. That is fucking reality now. So you can complain about it and feel all principled and shit but you know as well as I do that nothing will change by 2016 to put a third party in national office. Local offices maybe. State governments, but national, no.

We really don't have time for ideological absolutism right now. Look around you. Peoples homes, cars, and property are being stolen by asset forfeiture laws, the police state is rising, blacks are a permanent underclass due to drug laws and the one guy who actually is doing something about all of these things you guys will shit on because oh my gods his foreign fucking policy.

Thanks.

[Animal Mother]

And btw, here are your ideological co-fellows


Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/473-Adelaide),
Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1013-Bob),
Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/128-Chris),
Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/294-Cigar),
Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1085-Common-Sense),
Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/870-Ethereal),
gamewell45 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/276-gamewell45),
GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/478-GrassrootsConservative),
KC (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/423-KC),
nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/572-nic34),
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem)

A bunch of progressives and Bob.

[Codename Section]

I agree with dickhead. There's no time to waste waiting for Gary Johnson or another Ron Paul. I'll take a guy who has some libertarian leanings over two people who want to throw gasoline on the fire.

[Matty]

And btw, here are your ideological co-fellows

Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/473-Adelaide),
Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1013-Bob),
Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/128-Chris),
Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/294-Cigar),
Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1085-Common-Sense),
Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/870-Ethereal),
gamewell45 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/276-gamewell45),
GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/478-GrassrootsConservative),
KC (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/423-KC),
nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/572-nic34),
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem)
A bunch of progressives and Bob.
Rofl

[GrassrootsConservative]

And btw, here are your ideological co-fellows

Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/473-Adelaide),
Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1013-Bob),
Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/128-Chris),
Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/294-Cigar),
Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1085-Common-Sense),
Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/870-Ethereal),
gamewell45 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/276-gamewell45),
GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/478-GrassrootsConservative),
KC (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/423-KC),
nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/572-nic34),
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem)
A bunch of progressives and Bob.

The fuck is my name doing up there?

[Animal Mother]

The fuck is my name doing up there?

You voted.

[GrassrootsConservative]

You voted.

Voting makes me a progressive?

Your leap in logic is still unfounded.

[KC]

And btw, here are your ideological co-fellows


Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/473-Adelaide),
Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1013-Bob),
Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/128-Chris),
Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/294-Cigar),
Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1085-Common-Sense),
Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/870-Ethereal),
gamewell45 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/276-gamewell45),
GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/478-GrassrootsConservative),
KC (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/423-KC),
nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/572-nic34),
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem)

A bunch of progressives and Bob.

I'm a progressive? News to me. Fuck off.

[Animal Mother]

Voting makes me a progressive?

Your leap in logic is still unfounded.

You're very authoritarian. **shrugs**

[Codename Section]

GrassrootsConservative

which of his policies and votes didn't you like? Serious question.

[Chris]

A year or two ago I might have. I still think he's a better pick than Hillary, or most of the neo cons in the GOP for that matter. But I'm not crazy about him and will likely vote third party anyhow.

Same here. I was constantly putting up threads in support but that led to disenchantment, especially with his interventionism related to Israel. Of course he's better than anyone else currently. If I decide to vote it would be third party too.

[KC]

Same here. I was constantly putting up threads in support but that led to disenchantment, especially with his interventionism related to Israel. Of course he's better than anyone else currently. If I decide to vote it would be third party too.

Precisely. I was actually still willing to vote for him until this last summer when the violence broke out in Gaza. Since then he has been morphing into a neo-con.

[GrassrootsConservative]

@GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=478)

which of his policies and votes didn't you like? Serious question.

He's bigger government and more progressive than his dad. That makes me suspicious of him.

/Edit: It's not any one policy. He's establishment Republican liberal like Bush, McCain, and Romney. He's in it for the money and not for the success of the nation.

[Chris]

And not everyone learns from reading books, most people don't have time for that shit. They need to see practical applications of ideas. No offense, but you're kind of a nerd. This is plain to see from your posts. Most people are not like you, they need a reality experience.

It took Obama to make people read for a black or female president. It could take a Rand Paul to make people ready for a Ron Paul.



And libertarians complaining about progressives is hypocritical unless they're planning on doing something proactive and/or pragmatic about it.



Exactly and right now we're at the brink of totalitarianism, at the fucking brink, and you guys want to complain about Rand Paul and will take your "principled" vote or nonvote to someone who won't win so we can ensure that Hillary or Jeb is our next president. That's like Frodo dropping the ring off at the gates of Mordor with a nice holiday card.

No, Rand is not a libertarian, but he can be the guy that vetos the fucks in Congress and will do some things that will slow the momentum. He is still Ron Paul's son and if you guys don't think some of that rubbed off you're a bunch of snobs.



When I say education I don't mean reading books but talking politics and economics and ethics and such, education in the exchange of opinions and ideas.


Doing something in government is the problem. Perhaps it could take a Rand to prepare people for a Ron, but the Ron is retired and busy educating people.


There's two way things could change. Change the system, revolution or evolution. Or let the system grow worse and collapse--totalitarianism is extremely expensive, they tend to go broke, monetarily and morally.

[GrassrootsConservative]

You're very authoritarian. **shrugs**

No, that's Rand Paul. Look up Ron Paul. I still have a bumper sticker Ron Paul for President 2012. You're the authoritarian one compared to me. I'm as far right as you can get without being Fascist. People need to be free. Conservatism is the only way to go.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Gotta go to work. Hopefully you'll have learned something by the time I get back.

[The Xl]

That's kind of lovely that you and XL believe there's a perfect candidate out there that if you just vote for them they'll change things.

I can understand not voting because you're an anarchist but if you're a minarchist and you don't vote in an election or primary where our choices are Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton then you're basically saying, I'll let my minarchist ego override any goddamn sense I have about how to slow the momentum of big government fuckery.

No, he isn't his father. Yes, he is saying some pro-Israel things but he's still the guy introducing legislation that will remove mandatory minimums something XL has pretended for years he cares about and will end racist policies that hurt black people. He's also the guy putting out legislation to stop the asset forfeiture, end drones, repeal aspects of the NDAA, and all this other shit you guys keep saying you like.

It's about momentum and slowing it until someone can get in that you do like which could be years without showing the country that someone with libertarian leanings won't destroy it. The older generation is not ready for a Ron Paul or Justin Amash yet.

So unless you're up for revolution which I doubt either of you are your fake principles on this do nothing but help contribute to the problem. You're going to sit on the Internet and talk Hayak and how both parties are the same and feel like masters of the universe for being above it all while we put in progressive candidates.

That's just great guys.

Pretended? Watch yourself there, buddy.

In any case, maybe I don't believe Rand will follow up with his promises? Yeah, that's probably it.

[Matty]

And not everyone learns from reading books, most people don't have time for that $#@!. They need to see practical applications of ideas. No offense, but you're kind of a nerd. This is plain to see from your posts. Most people are not like you, they need a reality experience.

It took Obama to make people read for a black or female president. It could take a Rand Paul to make people ready for a Ron Paul.



And libertarians complaining about progressives is hypocritical unless they're planning on doing something proactive and/or pragmatic about it.



Exactly and right now we're at the brink of totalitarianism, at the $#@!ing brink, and you guys want to complain about Rand Paul and will take your "principled" vote or nonvote to someone who won't win so we can ensure that Hillary or Jeb is our next president. That's like Frodo dropping the ring off at the gates of Mordor with a nice holiday card.

No, Rand is not a libertarian, but he can be the guy that vetos the $#@!s in Congress and will do some things that will slow the momentum. He is still Ron Paul's son and if you guys don't think some of that rubbed off you're a bunch of snobs.
Jeb Bush would make a good President. He was a wonderful Govenor.

[Chris]

If only! If only people would rise up and march against Washington in the millions. If only people would write their Senators daily. If only people were more active. If only Megan Fox would leave her husband for me.

The system is embedded and is fixed. That is fucking reality now. So you can complain about it and feel all principled and shit but you know as well as I do that nothing will change by 2016 to put a third party in national office. Local offices maybe. State governments, but national, no.

We really don't have time for ideological absolutism right now. Look around you. Peoples homes, cars, and property are being stolen by asset forfeiture laws, the police state is rising, blacks are a permanent underclass due to drug laws and the one guy who actually is doing something about all of these things you guys will shit on because oh my gods his foreign fucking policy.

Thanks.

True, there's little hope for revolution, the system is too entrenched. Besides revolution, historically, tends to replace tyranny with more of the same. This country revolted once, and look at it now.

I think evolution, change through education, by which I mean the exchange of opinions and ideas, change not in government, but in society, is the better route.

You yourself can hardly deny the value of such exchange since you're engaged in it right now.

[Mister D]

When I say education I don't mean reading books but talking politics and economics and ethics and such, education in the exchange of opinions and ideas.



I will often talk about what I read here. I find that the process (e.g. expressing ideas in my own words) helps me understand the material better. I've been doing that for years now.

[Chris]

And btw, here are your ideological co-fellows


Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/473-Adelaide),
Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1013-Bob),
Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/128-Chris),
Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/294-Cigar),
Common Sense (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/1085-Common-Sense),
Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/870-Ethereal),
gamewell45 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/276-gamewell45),
GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/478-GrassrootsConservative),
KC (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/423-KC),
nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/572-nic34),
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem)

A bunch of progressives and Bob.



Ethereal? He also helped persuade me Rand was an interventionist. @KC? He's not progressive.

That's an odd list.

[Perianne]

@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870)? He also helped persuade me Rand was an interventionist. @KC? He's not progressive.

That's an odd list.

At least he didn't put me on that list. Maybe he forgot?

[Chris]

I will often talk about what I read here. I find that the process (e.g. expressing ideas in my own words) helps me understand the material better. I've been doing that for years now.

Reading, good reading, is a discussion with the author. And then you carry that discussion to others, here, the office, neighborhood. It's all a dialog.

A good writer, too, is having a dialog with those who came before.

[Chris]

At least he didn't put me on that list. Maybe he forgot?

Ask him, he still has time to edit it!

We could call it animal's random list of members.

[The Xl]

Some of the Rand supporters are sounding and acting a lot like the Romney supporters. If you don't vote for him you're X, he's the lesser of the evils, you must not care about Y, etc.

The guy has already shown his establishment hand. I can't believe that the people on here supporting him the strongest are anarchists who were the ones who were basically used as guinea pigs overseas. I mean, the guy is pretty much owned by the Israel lobby, but hey, whatever floats your boats.

[Codename Section]

True, there's little hope for revolution, the system is too entrenched. Besides revolution, historically, tends to replace tyranny with more of the same. This country revolted once, and look at it now.

I think evolution, change through education, by which I mean the exchange of opinions and ideas, change not in government, but in society, is the better route.

You yourself can hardly deny the value of such exchange since you're engaged in it right now.

I'm with animal mother we don't have time for education over time anymore. Look around you, we're one step or one tragedy from being the Fourth Reich.

[Chris]

Some of the Rand supporters are sounding and acting a lot like the Romney supporters. If you don't vote for him you're X, he's the lesser of the evils, you must not care about Y, etc.s guni

The guy has already shown his establishment hand. I can't believe that the people on here supporting him the strongest are anarchists who were the ones who were basically used as guinea pigs overseas. I mean, the guy is pretty much owned by the Israel lobby, but hey, whatever floats your boats.



That's what I said earlier, jeez, the arguments are old and worn out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnq5ktoApFA

[Matty]

True, there's little hope for revolution, the system is too entrenched. Besides revolution, historically, tends to replace tyranny with more of the same. This country revolted once, and look at it now.

I think evolution, change through education, by which I mean the exchange of opinions and ideas, change not in government, but in society, is the better route.

You yourself can hardly deny the value of such exchange since you're engaged in it right now.
Unless you get the progressives out it will be difficult to change education. Progressives tend to stifle the free exchange of opinions and ideas.

[Chris]

I'm with animal mother we don't have time for education over time anymore. Look around you, we're one step or one tragedy from being the Fourth Reich.

And historically tyrannies don't last long. Hell, the country, driven by politicians you all want to elect, is on the edge of final collapse already.

[Chris]

Unless you get the progressives out it will be difficult to change education. Progressives tend to stifle the free exchange of opinions and ideas.

I don't consider the likes of mac's rantings free exchange of anything. Then again I think he's a closet progressive trying to make you all look bad.

Like I said though, the only difference between Dems and Reps is Dems want to spend and regulate more and Reps just 1% less more. Go back to the fiscal cliff compromise proposed by Reps to decrease the rate of increase in federal spending by a percentage point or so. So we reach tyranny a little slower?

[Codename Section]

Some of the Rand supporters are sounding and acting a lot like the Romney supporters. If you don't vote for him you're X, he's the lesser of the evils, you must not care about Y, etc.


There is a difference between Rand and Romney. Not acknowledging that doesn't show an ounce of pragmatism. Romney had zero libertarian actions as governor, Rand has tried to repeal the NDAA, stood against drones, has a bill to restore rights to drug felons, a bill to end mandatory minimums, a bill to have the FDA revisit pot laws, and a bill to stop asset forfeiture. Each time he has reached across the aisle for help and many of these are gaining momentum in the Senate.

You expect perfection from politicians. I expect them to be politicians. I just don't think that we're at a point where we can afford a Romney or Hillary right now.



The guy has already shown his establishment hand.

So have you as a minarchist. Should we throw out everything you say because you don't want full voluntary exchange?




I can't believe that the people on here supporting him the strongest are anarchists who were the ones who were basically used as guinea pigs overseas. I mean, the guy is pretty much owned by the Israel lobby, but hey, whatever floats your boats.

Because we see the secret stuff the government does and are scared about it getting worse. You care about Israel or whatever. I care about the noose that is tightening here at home. A government that can take your property, remove your civil liberties, curb your freedom of speech isn't one you can turn your back on or say it's another generation's problems.

You're saying to do nothing rather than vote for someone imperfect. I'm saying I'd rather have someone imperfect that will slow things down and set a precedence for actual libertarians in the future.

And seriously an anarchist and a real freedom lover would be planning a revolution right now. Not waxing poetic on the internet about who is Israels bitch. The fact that someone wouldn't advocate that on the Internet or that we have to talk about revolution hypothetically should show you exactly why we can't wait on the perfect candidate.

[Codename Section]

And historically tyrannies don't last long.

Historically tyrannies didn't have the type of technology our government has to ensure that it lasts a good long while. Nero couldn't exactly have people listen in real time on all the planning activities of people who wanted to revolt against him or use remote technology to control the automobiles conspirators owned, or to use a drone to take them out from the skies.

History is great for understanding man's nature, not always great as a model for the future.




Hell, the country, driven by politicians you all want to elect, is on the edge of final collapse already.

People said that in the 1990s, too. It will get worse before it gets better. Now, people like me will be fine should things go the way they are trending. It's people like you and XL who live in urban centers who will feel the brunt of it.

[Codename Section]

That's what I said earlier, jeez, the arguments are old and worn out.


It would only be worn out if I thought Rand Paul was "evil" and I was choosing evil light over evil. I think he's flawed but ok.

Why do you and XL think he's "evil"? Why do you discount what he has done already?

What don't you guys like about the following:

Reversal of asset forfeiture laws?
Reversal of marijuana laws?
Restoration of felony rights?
End to mandatory minimums?
Restoration of due process rights in the War on Terror?
Tax free zones?

Which of those do you have a problem with?

[Chris]

Historically tyrannies didn't have the type of technology our government has to ensure that it lasts a good long while. Nero couldn't exactly have people listen in real time on all the planning activities of people who wanted to revolt against him or use remote technology to control the automobiles conspirators owned, or to use a drone to take them out from the skies.

History is great for understanding man's nature, not always great as a model for the future.



People said that in the 1990s, too. It will get worse before it gets better. Now, people like me will be fine should things go the way they are trending. It's people like you and XL who live in urban centers who will feel the brunt of it.


Neither did the people have the technologies we have today. Decentralized sharing, the Internet of Things.

Even tyrannies, like any political system, need the support of the people to survive.

True, the future is essentially unpredictable since history changes everything. But then you can't predict tyranny inevitable.

All that stretches Rand Paul's worth a bit. He won't decide the future. I just have my doubts he's up to changing the system.

[The Xl]

There is a difference between Rand and Romney. Not acknowledging that doesn't show an ounce of pragmatism. Romney had zero libertarian actions as governor, Rand has tried to repeal the NDAA, stood against drones, has a bill to restore rights to drug felons, a bill to end mandatory minimums, a bill to have the FDA revisit pot laws, and a bill to stop asset forfeiture. Each time he has reached across the aisle for help and many of these are gaining momentum in the Senate.

You expect perfection from politicians. I expect them to be politicians. I just don't think that we're at a point where we can afford a Romney or Hillary right now.



So have you as a minarchist. Should we throw out everything you say because you don't want full voluntary exchange?



Because we see the secret stuff the government does and are scared about it getting worse. You care about Israel or whatever. I care about the noose that is tightening here at home. A government that can take your property, remove your civil liberties, curb your freedom of speech isn't one you can turn your back on or say it's another generation's problems.

You're saying to do nothing rather than vote for someone imperfect. I'm saying I'd rather have someone imperfect that will slow things down and set a precedence for actual libertarians in the future.

And seriously an anarchist and a real freedom lover would be planning a revolution right now. Not waxing poetic on the internet about who is Israels bitch. The fact that someone wouldn't advocate that on the Internet or that we have to talk about revolution hypothetically should show you exactly why we can't wait on the perfect candidate.

Yes, and he's bending more and more, day by day. There will be a point where what he did in the past, is that, in the past. I don't expect perfection, I expect them not to be bought and to legislate for the people. I'm sure Obama had an actual progressive record as a Congressman at one point in time, too.

If you want to "throw away" everything I say, so be it. No sweat off my back. We're two different things, I'm an minarchist and you're an anarchist. We don't think exactly the same, don't hold the same ideals. Not even sure where you were going with this one.

You guys can sit there and talk about we can't afford this or that, it's all the same pandering and pressuring that goes on in the Republican party today to any libertarian or small government leaning con who doesn't bend to their will. I don't expect the perfect candidate. Gary Johnson wasn't perfect. He also wasn't obviously bought, and was better than Rand. I don't think Rand will do anything for anyone, I think he's the rights Barack Obama. He'll sound nice and have a decent record before holding a big office, then will get in and be full establishment.

Anyone being spotlighted by Time and bought by the Israel lobby isn't the revolutionary and freedom fighter you're looking for, no matter how much you want to believe. Sorry.

[Chris]

It would only be worn out if I thought Rand Paul was "evil" and I was choosing evil light over evil. I think he's flawed but ok.

Why do you and XL think he's "evil"? Why do you discount what he has done already?

What don't you guys like about the following:

Reversal of asset forfeiture laws?
Reversal of marijuana laws?
Restoration of felony rights?
End to mandatory minimums?
Restoration of due process rights in the War on Terror?
Tax free zones?

Which of those do you have a problem with?


There's lots I like about him, I think his economic free zones proposed for Detroit were brilliant. But, as stated several times, I have a problem with the interventionist policies he advocates. Ethereal has probably been the biggest factor on this forum to expose that. In general he seems a bit wishy washy, saying one thing one day, one place, another another, as is the case with most politicians. The Xl has done much to expose this.

[Codename Section]

Neither did the people have the technologies we have today. Decentralized sharing, the Internet of Things.

You cannot in your line of work actually believe that the government can't look through your phone or computer and see what you're doing even on the dark web. Dude, it is in the hardware. Unless you go extremely low tech using pidgeons and know how to evade them like some of us do, you're fucked.

There is no way to plan a revolt against that tyranny without them knowing, and they are doing a good job at controlling guns right now.




Even tyrannies, like any political system, need the support of the people to survive.


And they have spent 100 years socially engineering people to accept tyranny and it's working.



True, the future is essentially unpredictable since history changes everything. But then you can't predict tyranny inevitable.


We're almost there, some might argue we already are.



All that stretches Rand Paul's worth a bit. He won't decide the future. I just have my doubts he's up to changing the system.

His worth is not to change the system but to slow down the destruction of liberties enough to buy time to prepare. The system won't change without a collapse.

[Codename Section]

There's lots I like about him, I think his economic free zones proposed for Detroit were brilliant. But, as stated several times, I have a problem with the interventionist policies he advocates. @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) has probably been the biggest factor on this forum to expose that. In general he seems a bit wishy washy, saying one thing one day, one place, another another, as is the case with most politicians. @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) has done much to expose this.

Expose? He's not hiding that he thinks we should be world players. Are you guys so seriously single issue on noninterventionism that you'd toss all the domestic advances he's putting through?

[Codename Section]

Yes, and he's bending more and more, day by day.

No, he's not. He's always said these things. He's always been more globally involved than his father.




There will be a point where what he did in the past, is that, in the past. I don't expect perfection, I expect them not to be bought and to legislate for the people. I'm sure Obama had an actual progressive record as a Congressman at one point in time, too.


Who "bought" him? His stance on Israel is consistent with his religion. Protestants are very supportive of Israel for some reason. My mother and father are and nobody's paying them.



If you want to "throw away" everything I say, so be it. No sweat off my back. We're two different things, I'm an minarchist and you're an anarchist. We don't think exactly the same, don't hold the same ideals. Not even sure where you were going with this one.


My point is that you already believe in some intervention by the government in some areas but not in others. Everyone is inconsistent with their ideology. If not we'd all be revolting right now.



You guys can sit there and talk about we can't afford this or that, it's all the same pandering and pressuring that goes on in the Republican party today to any libertarian or small government leaning con who doesn't bend to their will. I don't expect the perfect candidate. Gary Johnson wasn't perfect. He also wasn't obviously bought, and was better than Rand. I don't think Rand will do anything for anyone, I think he's the rights Barack Obama. He'll sound nice and have a decent record before holding a big office, then will get in and be full establishment.

What makes you think Rand will do anything for anyone?

Do you think the Republicans are for drones or against them? Do you think Lockheed Martin will support a candidate who doesn't think we should go to war? What about the CIA, how do you think that them and their contractors feel about a guy who wants to remove the power of the NSA to do use mass warrants?

You always harp on Iran sanctions and Israel and ignore pretty much everything else he does. I don't even understand it. You treat him like Mitt ROmney when Romney's policies are pro-spying, pro-jailing, pro-war, pro-asset seizure, etc.




Anyone being spotlighted by Time and bought by the Israel lobby isn't the revolutionary and freedom fighter you're looking for, no matter how much you want to believe. Sorry.

Who said he was? That's a straw man. I've said that we don't have any freedom fighters or else we'd have already revolted. I said that he is better than any other candidate and would slow the destruction of domestic civil liberties. That's pretty much it.

I'm not expecting much from him, just that.

[The Xl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm5Lqib2r64

I'll just leave this here. This is a guy who, a few years ago, wanted to end foreign aid to Israel, now he's sucking them off, wants to fight Isis, an attack on Israel is an attack on the US, etc.

It's pretty clear to me that the guy is just your average run of the mil politician at this juncture. Very similar to what happened to Obama.

[The Xl]

No, he's not. He's always said these things. He's always been more globally involved than his father.



Who "bought" him? His stance on Israel is consistent with his religion. Protestants are very supportive of Israel for some reason. My mother and father are and nobody's paying them.



My point is that you already believe in some intervention by the government in some areas but not in others. Everyone is inconsistent with their ideology. If not we'd all be revolting right now.



What makes you think Rand will do anything for anyone?

Do you think the Republicans are for drones or against them? Do you think Lockheed Martin will support a candidate who doesn't think we should go to war? What about the CIA, how do you think that them and their contractors feel about a guy who wants to remove the power of the NSA to do use mass warrants?

You always harp on Iran sanctions and Israel and ignore pretty much everything else he does. I don't even understand it. You treat him like Mitt ROmney when Romney's policies are pro-spying, pro-jailing, pro-war, pro-asset seizure, etc.



Who said he was? That's a straw man. I've said that we don't have any freedom fighters or else we'd have already revolted. I said that he is better than any other candidate and would slow the destruction of domestic civil liberties. That's pretty much it.

I'm not expecting much from him, just that.

Come on. His stance on Israel clearly has to do with pressure from big special interests and his party. It has nothing to do with his beliefs or whatever.

I believe in some government, true, but how does that make me inconsistent? You guys believe in governance and imposing your will as well, just without a big funded state. You'd impose your will on others in the community through your own court system, laws, whatever.

I'm drawing the parallel to Romney because of the similarity in the way the supporters act when both are criticized. I'd say his career political trajectory is more like Barack Obamas.

[Animal Mother]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm5Lqib2r64

I'll just leave this here. This is a guy who, a few years ago, wanted to end foreign aid to Israel, now he's sucking them off, wants to fight Isis, an attack on Israel is an attack on the US, etc.

It's pretty clear to me that the guy is just your average run of the mil politician at this juncture. Very similar to what happened to Obama.


Except that even as Senator Obama didn't do shit to advance civil liberties. All he did was vote no. Anyone can do that. Rand's spent how much time building coalitions and suing the government?

Israel is a tiny portion of the big picture. What good is feeling principled when you can be stopped and frisked or hauled off to jail for questioning cops or even being shot because they're all trigger happy?

You know it was Rand who put up legislation to remove the government's authority to give police military equipment right? You think Mitt ROmney or Jeb Bush would do that?

[Animal Mother]

Answer Code's question

What don't you like about the legislation he's sponsoring?

[The Xl]

Except that even as Senator Obama didn't do shit to advance civil liberties. All he did was vote no. Anyone can do that. Rand's spent how much time building coalitions and suing the government?

Israel is a tiny portion of the big picture. What good is feeling principled when you can be stopped and frisked or hauled off to jail for questioning cops or even being shot because they're all trigger happy?

You know it was Rand who put up legislation to remove the government's authority to give police military equipment right? You think Mitt ROmney or Jeb Bush would do that?

I consider our interventionism to be the biggest problem our country is facing. He has shown where he stands on the matter.

[The Xl]

Answer Code's question

What don't you like about the legislation he's sponsoring?

A lot of the legislation is good, but I do not believe he will govern in that manner if he gets the Presidency. His words, demeanor, and actions have already started to change.

He sure has the lot of you fooled.

[The Xl]

And for the record, Obama voted no the the Patriot Act, started a bill to lower dependance on foreign oil, etc, in Congress, so.....yeah, like I said, the lefts Rand.

[Animal Mother]

I consider our interventionism to be the biggest problem our country is facing. He has shown where he stands on the matter.

So the fact that we incarcerate more people than any other country in the world is not our biggest problem? That we can't get black men jobs because of a revolving cycle of prison terms doesn't bother you as much as sending money to Israel?

The drug war creates most of the violence in this country and has created a militarized police department but "Israel"?

Ok.

[The Xl]

So the fact that we incarcerate more people than any other country in the world is not our biggest problem? That we can't get black men jobs because of a revolving cycle of prison terms doesn't bother you as much as sending money to Israel?

The drug war creates most of the violence in this country and has created a militarized police department but "Israel"?

Ok.

You lot sound like Romney supporters. That tactic won't work on me.

I don't believe Rand will do anything for the black community should he take the office of President.

[Animal Mother]

And for the record, Obama voted no the the Patriot Act, started a bill to lower dependance on foreign oil, etc, in Congress, so.....yeah, like I said, the lefts Rand.

So if you went hunting in the woods for deer its the same as being a military sniper?

Obama voted "no", like I said, and he crafted a few bills that have nothing to do with civil liberties. Nothing alike unless you want to stretch it like gum.

[Animal Mother]

You lot sound like Romney supporters. That tactic won't work on me.

Telling me I sound like a Romney supporter is garbage and won't work on me either. I don't play that whole libertarian meme game. I asked you about specific issues of domestic liberty and you come back with I sound like a Romney supporter--none of whom care about civil liberties.

Try again.

Why is interventionism more important than civil liberties in the US? Answer that question instead of telling me who I sound like.

[Codename Section]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_Uni ted_States_Senate

Where are the civil liberties? He voted for sanctions, too. He voted for holidays, feel good crap, and other than the no on the Patriot Act, he is consistent as President with what he voted on and sponsored.

If we go by Obama then Rand will be a president who promotes the things he sponsored, so what don't we like about those things?

[PolWatch]

The next year will show what Rand is made of...to get big $$ support, he will have start twisting positions...it happens everytime. Look at McCain...he caved to pressure & accepted an unqualified VP candidate trying to get away from the party of old white men image.

[Codename Section]

The next year will show what Rand is made of...to get big $$ support, he will have start twisting positions...it happens everytime. Look at McCain...he caved to pressure & accepted an unqualified VP candidate trying to get away from the party of old white men image.


I don't think McCain was ever really pro-liberties. He was just a moderate at a time when most Republicans were crazy conservative.

[Matty]

The next year will show what Rand is made of...to get big $$ support, he will have start twisting positions...it happens everytime. Look at McCain...he caved to pressure & accepted an unqualified VP candidate trying to get away from the party of old white men image.
Don't keep spouting that bs. Sarah Palin was more qualified to be VP than the man you democrats put in the wh.

[PolWatch]

you have your opinion & I have mine...

[Chris]

You cannot in your line of work actually believe that the government can't look through your phone or computer and see what you're doing even on the dark web. Dude, it is in the hardware. Unless you go extremely low tech using pidgeons and know how to evade them like some of us do, you're fucked.

There is no way to plan a revolt against that tyranny without them knowing, and they are doing a good job at controlling guns right now.



And they have spent 100 years socially engineering people to accept tyranny and it's working.



We're almost there, some might argue we already are.



His worth is not to change the system but to slow down the destruction of liberties enough to buy time to prepare. The system won't change without a collapse.


Right, they can eavesdrop but they can't stop people from communicating. See the thread I did on Internet of Things: The Imminent Decentralized Computing Revolution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/33250-The-Imminent-Decentralized-Computing-Revolution). Poly talks about this too.

I'm not talking revolution so much as evolution through education (as defined above).

Given 100 years of social engineering what else is a revolution going to produce but another tyranny? That, I think, is the mistake of most anarchist throughout history.

Slowing government is not good enough, it needs to be reversed.

[Chris]

Expose? He's not hiding that he thinks we should be world players. Are you guys so seriously single issue on noninterventionism that you'd toss all the domestic advances he's putting through?

Expose in the sense most people initially thought Rand a noninterventionist.

No, not single issue.

I'll start putting up threads on Rand again.

[Codename Section]

Right, they can eavesdrop but they can't stop people from communicating. See the thread I did on Internet of Things: The Imminent Decentralized Computing Revolution (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/33250-The-Imminent-Decentralized-Computing-Revolution). Poly talks about this too.

And I've recently spoken with hackers who will tell you that this is an illusion and that unless you build your own computer system and your own internet you're screwed.




I'm not talking revolution so much as evolution through education (as defined above).


Right and education is like "Hope and Change" always in the future and may never come. I honestly don't care that 50 years from now things will be better. I care about the next 5-7 years.



Given 100 years of social engineering what else is a revolution going to produce but another tyranny? That, I think, is the mistake of most anarchist throughout history.


I disagree. I think history has shown that people take a break. During that break you can have your education.



Slowing government is not good enough, it needs to be reversed.

And Rand has tried to reverse it but you guys don't give him credit for that.

[Chris]

The next year will show what Rand is made of...to get big $$ support, he will have start twisting positions...it happens everytime. Look at McCain...he caved to pressure & accepted an unqualified VP candidate trying to get away from the party of old white men image.

They all cave.

You remind me another issue I have with Rand, we don't really know who he is and what he stands for. He's defining himself as he goes. I'll wait and see where he ends up.

[Chris]

And I've recently spoken with hackers who will tell you that this is an illusion and that unless you build your own computer system and your own internet you're screwed.



Right and education is like "Hope and Change" always in the future and may never come. I honestly don't care that 50 years from now things will be better. I care about the next 5-7 years.



I disagree. I think history has shown that people take a break. During that break you can have your education.



And Rand has tried to reverse it but you guys don't give him credit for that.



See the link provided. It doesn't rely on the Internet. It's in it's infancy, but going places.

Besides, if we succumb to your argument, we might as well give in to government control and loss of liberties.

Not that kind of education, what I mean is exchange of opinions and ideas. Like we're doing now. Dismiss that and you might as well stop posting.

People take a break and stop supporting tyranny. Public opinion is a strong factor. Especially when the tyranny drives its subjects to the poor house.

Ron tried to reduce government. Not sure I see Rand doing that.

[Chris]

Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c5odNzKVbk

[Codename Section]

They all cave.

You remind me another issue I have with Rand, we don't really know who he is and what he stands for. He's defining himself as he goes. I'll wait and see where he ends up.

Everyone defines themselves as they do. If his name was Rand Johnson people would think he's a pretty cool Republican. Because his dad is Ron Paul they expected more.

[Codename Section]

Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c5odNzKVbk

Yes, notice the (R) by his name? Should he have fucked over his Republican constituents and endorsed Barak Obama?

[PolWatch]

I don't think McCain was ever really pro-liberties. He was just a moderate at a time when most Republicans were crazy conservative.

yeap...but I have always looked for a fiscal conservative candidate & have/had no illusions about the dem candidates on that subject.

[Codename Section]

See the link provided. It doesn't rely on the Internet. It's in it's infancy, but going places.

It relies on networks that are connected using the the purchase of existing systems. There ARE some people trying to build a 100% non-government run computing network but the government can still use their technology to read into it.

The issue is not the networks, it's the hardware.




Besides, if we succumb to your argument, we might as well give in to government control and loss of liberties.


No, my argument is to vote in someone who will halt the progression and turn back the clock on important issues to bide us time to prepare for the future.



Not that kind of education, what I mean is exchange of opinions and ideas. Like we're doing now. Dismiss that and you might as well stop posting.


I understand what you're saying and I'm telling you that to effect billions this way will take more time than we have. I'm not content with how things are and I don't feel like waiting until I'm 80 to see a voluntary society.



People take a break and stop supporting tyranny. Public opinion is a strong factor. Especially when the tyranny drives its subjects to the poor house.


The government is going to provide them food and shelter. You're missing that whole point. People have proven--look at Polly-- that they value security over freedom.



Ron tried to reduce government. Not sure I see Rand doing that.

What do you consider the bills I suggested to be? It grows government to remove mandatory minimum sentencing? It grows government to throw out pot laws? It grows government to give drug regulations back to the states? It grows government to remove its ability to seize your assets? It grows government when you try to stop it from spying on people through 4th Amendment protection acts?

Are you kidding me?

[Chris]

It relies on networks that are connected using the the purchase of existing systems. There ARE some people trying to build a 100% non-government run computing network but the government can still use their technology to read into it.

The issue is not the networks, it's the hardware.



No, my argument is to vote in someone who will halt the progression and turn back the clock on important issues to bide us time to prepare for the future.



I understand what you're saying and I'm telling you that to effect billions this way will take more time than we have. I'm not content with how things are and I don't feel like waiting until I'm 80 to see a voluntary society.



The government is going to provide them food and shelter. You're missing that whole point. People have proven--look at Polly-- that they value security over freedom.



What do you consider the bills I suggested to be? It grows government to remove mandatory minimum sentencing? It grows government to throw out pot laws? It grows government to give drug regulations back to the states? It grows government to remove its ability to seize your assets? It grows government when you try to stop it from spying on people through 4th Amendment protection acts?

Are you kidding me?


Internet of Things is all about peer-to-peer. There's the old Napster-like sharing using the Internet, but the newer stuff is cellphone t cellphone. There's a whole slew of messaging apps for phones coming out for this.


Ron Paul wanted to reduce government. I'm not convinced Rand does.


I guess I'm older and don't expect much change to happen in my lifetime. But I have faith in the youth of America, like you and animal and chloe and many others.


Trust in government is shrinking fast: Americans Distrust in Government Grows (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/33243-Americans-Distrust-in-Government-Grows).


Some of what he advocates reduces government. Intervention grows it.

[Chris]

Yes, notice the (R) by his name? Should he have fucked over his Republican constituents and endorsed Barak Obama?

One clone of Bush is the same as the other. He went with the status quo.

[Codename Section]

One clone of Bush is the same as the other. He went with the status quo.

So you don't believe that a Senator should be responsible to the will of the people of his state? He should decide for them who they want?

[Codename Section]

Internet of Things is all about peer-to-peer. There's the old Napster-like sharing using the Internet, but the newer stuff is cellphone t cellphone. There's a whole slew of messaging apps for phones coming out for this.

It's the hardware. Like I said the hacker kid I spoke to said that he just gave up fighting the man because unless you can build your own computer with parts built just by you or your phone is only from parts made by you then they can access your phone's camera and listening devices remotely.





Ron Paul wanted to reduce government. I'm not convinced Rand does.


And you've yet to explain why not? I hand you a serious of bills he's sponsored, his suit against the government, pointed out his filibuster--all of these aimed at reducing the government and you ignore them.

Explain how they wouldn't reduce government.




Some of what he advocates reduces government. Intervention grows it.

Intervention grows it, sure, but nothing else he does grows government. Your belief in personhood of a fetus and that fetus having rights is incongruent with most libertarians but someone wouldn't say that you're big government.

He's not an anarchist or a libertarian. He's a Republican with libertarian leanings and someone I think can slow government growth and even roll it back in some cases.

[Chris]

So you don't believe that a Senator should be responsible to the will of the people of his state? He should decide for them who they want?

You got that from my criticism of his endorsing Bush clone Romney? I don't see how.

[Chris]

It's the hardware. Like I said the hacker kid I spoke to said that he just gave up fighting the man because unless you can build your own computer with parts built just by you or your phone is only from parts made by you then they can access your phone's camera and listening devices remotely.



And you've yet to explain why not? I hand you a serious of bills he's sponsored, his suit against the government, pointed out his filibuster--all of these aimed at reducing the government and you ignore them.

Explain how they wouldn't reduce government.

To your list I replied some things he promises reduce government, some do not.


Look at his stances on immigration, especially legalizing illegals. That take more government.

Intervention grows it, sure, but nothing else he does grows government. Your belief in personhood of a fetus and that fetus having rights is incongruent with most libertarians but someone wouldn't say that you're big government.

He's not an anarchist or a libertarian. He's a Republican with libertarian leanings and someone I think can slow government growth and even roll it back in some cases.



I have explained. He's an interventionist. Intervention abroad implies intervention at home.



I have consistently reject any and all personhood arguments. While I am pro-life, I am against government meddling in any social issue like that.



You have faith in him. Like some have faith in God. I don't, but encourage you to follow your convictions and beliefs.

[Codename Section]

You got that from my criticism of his endorsing Bush clone Romney? I don't see how.

Because if he said "I can't endorse Mitt Romney" how do you think the people of Kentucky who voted for him would feel about that? He would have seemed like the bitter son of the man that lost to Romney instead of a Senator from Kentucky.

[Codename Section]

I have explained. He's an interventionist. Intervention abroad implies intervention at home.

No, you've stated it. Explaining would involve you explaining how saying we should give money to Israel means that he endorses the loss of 4th amendment rights here at home or advancing a police state.

Please explain how the two are related.




You have faith in him. Like some have faith in God. I don't, but encourage you to follow your convictions and beliefs.
[/quote]

Nope, but that's a nice straw man. I have no faith in any stranger. What I see is that Obama as president is consistent with Obama the Senator in all social issues and that he failed on his campaign promises of civil liberties. As Senator he never tried to advance civil liberties through legislation only "rights" for gays, minorities, etc.

Rand Paul's track record has advanced civil liberties in the US. Given his history challenging board monopolies, his book on regulations, and his voting record I don't think he'll show up and advance a police state.

[Chris]

No, you've stated it. Explaining would involve you explaining how saying we should give money to Israel means that he endorses the loss of 4th amendment rights here at home or advancing a police state.

Please explain how the two are related.




Nope, but that's a nice straw man. I have no faith in any stranger. What I see is that Obama as president is consistent with Obama the Senator in all social issues and that he failed on his campaign promises of civil liberties. As Senator he never tried to advance civil liberties through legislation only "rights" for gays, minorities, etc.

Rand Paul's track record has advanced civil liberties in the US. Given his history challenging board monopolies, his book on regulations, and his voting record I don't think he'll show up and advance a police state.[/QUOTE]

He wants to intervene in the ME, the only difference between him and Obama, so far as I can see it, is he would go to Congress for support.


I think you understood my analogy with faith. The point wasn't you have faith in Rand, but that just as those with faith, I wouldn't discourage you.


He's anti-police state. Good. He's interventionist. Not good. He's for legalizing illegals. Not good. --Of course, all in my opinion, in relation to my positions on those issues.

[Chris]

Because if he said "I can't endorse Mitt Romney" how do you think the people of Kentucky who voted for him would feel about that? He would have seemed like the bitter son of the man that lost to Romney instead of a Senator from Kentucky.

He claims to be a man of principle. He folded on that endorsement.

Again, to you he did the right thing, to me, the wrong.

[Animal Mother]

I would not have endorsed Mitt Romney unless I was laying low for awhile. I can do that, sometimes.

[Bob]

Actually @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), the first progressive president was a Republican, it was Teddy Roosevelt. Which just goes to show the D and the R has never meant much in the long run. I think both sides try to walk as much in the middle as possible. Just like American beer is crafted with a mild flavor so as to appeal to as many beer drinkers as possible (its not too hot and its not to cold, its just riiiiiight) politicians will walk as fine a line as possible so they can get those all important "independent" voters. You know, the ones who think nothing is ever black and white.

Teddy was nothing at all like FDR though. To call Teddy Republican takes some doing. Progressive then is not progressive today.

Teddy failed to get the nomination from the Republican party later and Taft took it. I consider Taft the more pure republican.

[Matty]

Teddy was nothing at all like FDR though. To call Teddy Progressive takes some doing. Progressive then is not progressive today.
Oh hell yes it is. The agenda hasn't changed a bit.

[Chris]

Teddy was nothing at all like FDR though. To call Teddy Republican takes some doing. Progressive then is not progressive today.

Teddy failed to get the nomination from the Republican party later and Taft took it. I consider Taft the more pure republican.


The Republican Party back then is not what it is today.

[The Xl]

So if you went hunting in the woods for deer its the same as being a military sniper?

Obama voted "no", like I said, and he crafted a few bills that have nothing to do with civil liberties. Nothing alike unless you want to stretch it like gum.

The point isn't exactly what each supported, it was to show that both have flipped on what they allegedly once supported.

[The Xl]

Telling me I sound like a Romney supporter is garbage and won't work on me either. I don't play that whole libertarian meme game. I asked you about specific issues of domestic liberty and you come back with I sound like a Romney supporter--none of whom care about civil liberties.

Try again.

Why is interventionism more important than civil liberties in the US? Answer that question instead of telling me who I sound like.

Because I think murdering innocents overseas, bankrupting the nation, and raising the risk of blowback is extremely dangerous and will eventually spell the demise of the country.

I don't believe Rand will carry his civil liberty stances over either, it's just a gimmick. He's clearly bought.

[The Xl]

Yes, notice the (R) by his name? Should he have fucked over his Republican constituents and endorsed Barak Obama?
He should have endorsed Gary Johnson or no one.

[Ethereal]

Teddy Roosevelt was a big government progressive to the core, and war monger to boot.

[The Xl]

He claims to be a man of principle. He folded on that endorsement.

Again, to you he did the right thing, to me, the wrong.
This

[Ethereal]

I like rand on domestic issues but he's faltering on foreign policy, particularly with regards to Russia, Israel, and ISIS.

[The Xl]

If he's already bent to the Israel lobby, why would you feel comfortable with him anywhere else? It proves that he's for sale.

[Ethereal]

I judge each issue on a case by case basis, and on domestic issues he has a strong record. That doesn't mean I'll vote for him, though.

[Chris]

He should have endorsed Gary Johnson or no one.

That I think would have been truer to his principles.

[Mister D]

If he's already bent to the Israel lobby, why would you feel comfortable with him anywhere else? It proves that he's for sale.

Or worse, he genuinely sides with them.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by The Xl http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=801388#post801388)
He should have endorsed Gary Johnson or no one.


That I think would have been truer to his principles.

I first heard of Gary Johnson on this forum a few months ago.

I fear some of you plan to waste a vote for another like him few heard of.

[The Xl]

Or worse, he genuinely sides with them.

Maybe, but back in 2011, he said he wanted to cut off financial aid to them, leads me to believe that the lobby got to him.

[The Xl]

I first heard of Gary Johnson on this forum a few months ago.

I fear some of you plan to waste a vote for another like him few heard of.

So long as you guys keep churning out GOP progressive garbage.

[Mister D]

Maybe, but back in 2011, he said he wanted to cut off financial aid to them, leads me to believe that the lobby got to him.

I'd happily vote for him if he had shown more spine in the wake of his comments regarding the CRA. Considering the political and social climate his was a radical if unoriginal critique. It's precisely on such issues that Americans need to be challenged. I wouldn't be too cynical though. Obviously, he has his career in mind (to some extent he should or he's no help to anyone) but the pressures faced are more than political. It's hard to stand alone.

[Animal Mother]

The point isn't exactly what each supported, it was to show that both have flipped on what they allegedly once supported.

Five years ago I hated tofu. I don't now. He still isn't huge into interventionism, he tends to be the one that goes along and then throws in the spoiler wording.

His record on civil liberties is what I care about and that's hard to beat right now.

[Animal Mother]

He should have endorsed Gary Johnson or no one.

No, he's a Republican. If he was a libertarian he should have endorsed Gary Johnson. For what matter Ron Paul shouldn't have run as a Republican, but ...whatevs. People aren't perfect. Sometimes they play the game in their own way. I do. If you're an open book people can run you.

[Bob]

So long as you guys keep churning out GOP progressive garbage.

What you can't come to grips with is elementary.

I know what you want.

What does the public want?

This is the same public that elected Obama.

What do you think republicans can do about people voting for his type of socialism?

You want to support those who can't win? Sure, drive to the voting booth and make sure to vote. For a loser.

[Codename Section]

I think his going along with the interventionists is politicking, and I don't like it. At the same time Washington isn't for overly honest or his father would be president right now.

His domestic record beats anyones including Gary Johnsons.

[Chris]

I first heard of Gary Johnson on this forum a few months ago.

I fear some of you plan to waste a vote for another like him few heard of.

Bush..Obama, now there's wasted votes.

[Chris]

Five years ago I hated tofu. I don't now. He still isn't huge into interventionism, he tends to be the one that goes along and then throws in the spoiler wording.

His record on civil liberties is what I care about and that's hard to beat right now.


I'll grant you and code that much, you two have a better argument for him than I against him. Just that I believe interventionism abroad ends up coming home.

[Codename Section]

I'll grant you and code that much, you two have a better argument for him than I against him. Just that I believe interventionism abroad ends up coming home.

I agree. Our interventionism has made us less safe. I also think based on what he's able to insert in these bills that he's being smart and actually preventing us from going nuts with it.

He's politicking. He votes for sanctions IF breaking of them doesn't include war. He votes for aid IF that aid is humanitarian.

[Mac-7]

The isolationists on this board think that no other force will take our place if America retreats to inside our own borders.

but you are wrong.

American interventionism is not the reason for world chaos even though we do sometimes make mistakes.

Without and active American foreign police the world (including America) would be worse off today.

[donttread]

ANY vote for the mainstream Donkephant is a vote for more of the same only worse.
Interesting , on this thread Rand has 11/23.

[Codename Section]

The isolationists on this board think that no other force will take our place if America retreats to inside our own borders.

No, that's not it. Some other nation can be an empire if they want. It's not in our founding principles of individual liberty to try and enforce our brand of democracy.

[Chris]

The isolationists on this board think that no other force will take our place if America retreats to inside our own borders.

but you are wrong.

American interventionism is not the reason for world chaos even though we do sometimes make mistakes.

Without and active American foreign police the world (including America) would be worse off today.


Who are the isolationists here? I see noecons and neo-neocons (libs) for intervention, and I see noninterventionists. I don't read everything so maybe I missed the isolationist(s).

[Max Rockatansky]

The isolationists on this board think that no other force will take our place if America retreats to inside our own borders.

but you are wrong.

American interventionism is not the reason for world chaos even though we do sometimes make mistakes.

Without and active American foreign police the world (including America) would be worse off today.

I tend to agree and it's the isolationist leanings that prevents me for being a die-hard member of the Libertarian Party since I agree with most of their platform.

Our economy is inextricably tied to the global economy. That's to our benefit but the cost is a vulnerability to outside forces. When the Nikkei stock market crashed eleven years ago it took the US stock market down too. The threats of Ebola, disruptions in the Middle East and other calamities have similar effects.

What happens outside the US is important to the security and welfare of American citizens inside the US. Ergo, we need to not only take an interest outside our own borders but maintain a presence too. That should not be construed as forming an American empire, but simply maintaining strong relations with our trading partners and allies. If this means coordinated military or law enforcement action against rogue nations or international crimes, so be it.

[Chris]

I tend to agree and it's the isolationist leanings that prevents me for being a die-hard member of the Libertarian Party since I agree with most of their platform.

Our economy is inextricably tied to the global economy. That's to our benefit but the cost is a vulnerability to outside forces. When the Nikkei stock market crashed eleven years ago it took the US stock market down too. The threats of Ebola, disruptions in the Middle East and other calamities have similar effects.

What happens outside the US is important to the security and welfare of American citizens inside the US. Ergo, we need to not only take an interest outside our own borders but maintain a presence too. That should not be construed as forming an American empire, but simply maintaining strong relations with our trading partners and allies. If this means coordinated military or law enforcement action against rogue nations or international crimes, so be it.


Libertarians are not isolationists. See How do Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats differ? (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/33531-How-do-Libertarians-Republicans-and-Democrats-differ).

[Max Rockatansky]

Libertarians are not isolationists. See How do Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats differ? (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/33531-How-do-Libertarians-Republicans-and-Democrats-differ).

Disagreed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a...well you know.

The LP makes all the right noises about it, but the bottom line is a reduction of the US influence in areas where we need to coordinate a presence with our allies and trading partners.


Like the average libertarian, Ron Paul is a dogmatic isolationist.Rothbard believed our involvement in the Second World War was a tragedy:
"Our entry into World War II was the crucial act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex...."
A former aide to the congressman, Eric Dondero says Paul told him the United States had no business being involved in World War II. "When pressed, he often brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand.
The 2010 platform of the National Libertarian Party sets forth a foreign policy difficult to distinguish from the lunacy of Michael Moore and Code Pink: The former provides:
"Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We should end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/to_get_ron_paul_you.html#ixzz3GcN99KJl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

http://www.varight.com/opinion/obamas-foreign-policy-is-libertarian-lite/

But the big issues I have with Libertarians is on foreign policy.

While their policy is often called isolationism, and that is not completely incorrect, the results of an American “hands-off” approach are beginning to show under Obama’s foreign policies of “leading from behind”.
Libertarians have a lot in common with Obama on foreign policy. At least it is accurate to say that Libertarians are closer to Obama’s foreign policy than Republicans are to either.....

....And the truth be told, the full metal jacket approach of nation building and perpetual war does make America feared, hated and safer. But the expense is unsustainable.

We need to find a sweet spot somewhere in between the Libertarian isolationism and the dominance of the great war machine. Speak softly and then blow the suckers to hell if they continue to act against our interest. And then leave. Repeat as necessary.

IIRC, you have advocated, in essence, reducing the US military to a beach and border self-defense force with no thought to how we are going to protect trade routes from rouge nations and criminals such as pirates.

As you should recall, Thomas Jefferson was an isolationist but had to reevaluate his position when it came to dealing with the Barbary pirates in Tripoli.

http://genehoyas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Burning-the-USS-Philadelphia.jpg

[Chris]

Disagreed. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a...well you know.

The LP makes all the right noises about it, but the bottom line is a reduction of the US influence in areas where we need to coordinate a presence with our allies and trading partners.



http://www.varight.com/opinion/obamas-foreign-policy-is-libertarian-lite/


IIRC, you have advocated, in essence, reducing the US military to a beach and border self-defense force with no thought to how we are going to protect trade routes from rouge nations and criminals such as pirates.

As you should recall, Thomas Jefferson was an isolationist but had to reevaluate his position when it came to dealing with the Barbary pirates in Tripoli.

...



Ron Paul is a noninterventionist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM

It matters little that you and some unknown sources disagree. You're creating a false dichotomy ignoring the meaning of words.

[Chris]

Even better explanation of libertarian noninterventionism--start at the 1 minute mark and listen for a minute or so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEDs6c5UD6I

[Mac-7]

Libertarians dream of a world with no superpower.

where all the nations happily and peacefully coexist once the evil Americans are put in their place.

what utter nonsense.

[Chris]

Libertarians dream of a world with no superpower.

where all the nations happily and peacefully coexist once the evil Americans are put in their place.

what utter nonsense.


"Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
~George Orwell, 1984

[Mac-7]

"Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
~George Orwell, 1984

You are quoting a work of fiction.

[Chris]

You are quoting a work of fiction.

What you posted was fiction.

[Mac-7]

What you posted was fiction.

No, i posted my opinion.

but you answered from lib la la land where no one knows the difference between fact and fiction.

[Chris]

No, i posted my opinion.

but you answered from lib la la land where no one knows the difference between fact and fiction.

What you posted was made up nonsense about libertarians. You're like a little kid who stomps his feet, calls names, and generally has a tantrum.

[Mac-7]

What you posted was made up nonsense about libertarians. You're like a little kid who stomps his feet, calls names, and generally has a tantrum.


You are entitled to your opinion.

but when you base that opinion on a work of fiction by George Orwell I have to wonder about you.

[Bob]

Bush..Obama, now there's wasted votes.

I agree on Obama. I feel the media beat up on Bush and some of you guys accepted the beatings as if they were valid. Maybe my problem is WW2 where I remember it, Korea where my uncle died in combat and Vietnam as well. I have seen America get into wars and wash our hands prior to the time to do that. Bush at least forged ahead.

[The Xl]

Ah, the old, tired, isolationist argument again.

[Bob]

This was a book and a movie. I saw the movie.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Chris http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=802294#post802294)
"Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
~George Orwell, 1984

[Bob]

Ah, the old, tired, isolationist argument again.

Not if you mean my post. I did not claim to be an isolationist.

[Mac-7]

Ah, the old, tired, isolationist argument again.

Its not tired.

What libertarians call "non intervention" the rest of us see as isolationism.

[Bob]

I tend to agree and it's the isolationist leanings that prevents me for being a die-hard member of the Libertarian Party since I agree with most of their platform.

Our economy is inextricably tied to the global economy. That's to our benefit but the cost is a vulnerability to outside forces. When the Nikkei stock market crashed eleven years ago it took the US stock market down too. The threats of Ebola, disruptions in the Middle East and other calamities have similar effects.

What happens outside the US is important to the security and welfare of American citizens inside the US. Ergo, we need to not only take an interest outside our own borders but maintain a presence too. That should not be construed as forming an American empire, but simply maintaining strong relations with our trading partners and allies. If this means coordinated military or law enforcement action against rogue nations or international crimes, so be it.

I am anti empire, but about middle of the road on wars like Iraq and had Afghanistan been fought as Iraq was, it too would not make my cut as needed wars.

America was super happy in most cases to wage war on Afghanistan. They believed our troops would do the major combat but our air force did that. We bombed the hell out of the Taliban and never saw Bin Laden. It was the Afghan's chasing him anyway and they really did not care if he escaped or not. We never should have blamed our troops since they never saw him nor spotted where he could hide.

Still, the major quarrel is always Iraq.

i don't care to blame Bush very much for a few major reasons. Reason one is the war was damned near cast in stone during Clinton's era. All that stopped Clinton from invading Iraq was he loved to screw off all the time other than he bombed a lot. Had Saddam feared Saddam, he would bail out before Bush showed up.

Bush was trying to win a war of the type America has never won. We pulled this same crap in Korea and later Vietnam. I seen all of that

I knew none of us could prevent the invasion so the next best thing to do is find something good in that invasion. My only thinking was at least it was designed to free people and until the uprising started a year after the war was won, it seemed like it worked.

[Chris]

Ah, the old, tired, isolationist argument again.

Yep, hard to believe it keeps coming back. Reminds me what John Derbyshire once said about Creationists here (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218174/george-gilder-metaphysic/john-derbyshire):


It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring.

[Chris]

Its not tired.

What libertarians call "non intervention" the rest of us see as isolationism.

It's an error in conflating two different ideas. And it is tiresome. Whack-a-mole.

[Max Rockatansky]

Its not tired.

What libertarians call "non intervention" the rest of us see as isolationism.

Agreed. It's not the terms but the actions which define it. As the "non-interventionists" what they mean and it becomes clear they are talking about isolationism.


It's an error in conflating two different ideas. And it is tiresome. Whack-a-mole.

You're the one advocating it. I'm the one advocating that the US stay engaged with our allies, to encourage/push them to take their fair share of the load for protecting alliances and trade routes and to never engage in unilateralism. To you support this or do you support closing down all foreign military bases and reducing our military to a National Guard and Coast Guard? Something in between? If so, please outline it.

[Captain Obvious]

He's morphing into an establishment candidate more and more, day by day.

Agreed.

[Chris]

Agreed. It's not the terms but the actions which define it. As the "non-interventionists" what they mean and it becomes clear they are talking about isolationism.



You're the one advocating it. I'm the one advocating that the US stay engaged with our allies, to encourage/push them to take their fair share of the load for protecting alliances and trade routes and to never engage in unilateralism. To you support this or do you support closing down all foreign military bases and reducing our military to a National Guard and Coast Guard? Something in between? If so, please outline it.


Yes, I advocate noninterventionism. Not isolationism, as much difference between the two as noninterventionuism and your interventionism.

"fair share" makes you sound like a liberal progressive.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, I advocate noninterventionism. Not isolationism, as much difference between the two as noninterventionuism and your interventionism.

"fair share" makes you sound like a liberal progressive.No definition and an accusation. I didn't expect anything more out of you, but I did want to give you the opportunity to state your case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retaindiplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy), and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.

AKA isolationism with a new and improved 21st Century name!

[Animal Mother]

Isolation means you stand apart from something. I'm not an isolationist. I want us to trade with other nations and have sex with their women.

Interventionism I am not about because I wouldn't want it done to us here in the US. None of us would like the world sending in troops to fix the partisan divide or lower our crime rates. It's a "do unto others" thing for me.

[Codename Section]

Interventionism has only made things worse. We've grown global terror, lost all the good will we had after WWII, and now we're a crumbling empire like the last days of Rome, run by idiots and an inbred elite class.

Can't wait for the barbarian hordes.

[The Xl]

The fact that people confuse a policy that advocates free trade to one that wants to be totally isolated from the world in every sense means they are either being dishonest or are extremely ignorant. Just because one doesn't advocate for war and force doesn't mean they want to be cut off from the rest of the world.

[Matty]

Interventionism has only made things worse. We've grown global terror, lost all the good will we had after WWII, and now we're a crumbling empire like the last days of Rome, run by idiots and an inbred elite class.

Can't wait for the barbarian hordes.
The U.S. just sucks a big one donut?

[Matty]

The fact that people confuse a policy that advocates free trade to one that wants to be totally isolated from the world in every sense means they are either being dishonest or are extremely ignorant. Just because one doesn't advocate for war and force doesn't mean they want to be cut off from the rest of the world.
Oh fuck the rest of the world. Isolationist all the way.

[Codename Section]

The U.S. just sucks a big one donut?

It does now. Every year it gets worse and unrecognizable. I'm about to sound "old" but we're going to Hell in a handcart.

[Matty]

Isolation means you stand apart from something. I'm not an isolationist. I want us to trade with other nations and have sex with their women.

Interventionism I am not about because I wouldn't want it done to us here in the US. None of us would like the world sending in troops to fix the partisan divide or lower our crime rates. It's a "do unto others" thing for me.
Who gives a shit about the partisan divide. Fuck kissing a democrats ass.

[Animal Mother]

Oh fuck the rest of the world. Isolationist all the way.

That's how I feel. If they don't pay taxes here I have no time for helping. It would be one thing if we acted like pirates where everyone who conquered a place got to take the booty, but no. They send in us thralls, give us crazy rules of engagement, and then we get shit pay while the corporations who wanted to be in there making dough get billions.

Fuck that shit. Either give me a fair cut like on a pirate ship or get the fuck out.