# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Jacob Hornberger Announces Run for Libertarian Presidential Nomination

## RonZeplin

*Jacob Hornberger Announces Run for Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination*

                                                     In April, I wrote  that it looked like Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob  Hornberger may run for president of the United States. As I noted then,  many people familiar with the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and  Prosperity (RPI) have read some of Hornbergers articles at the RPI  website or watched one of his speeches at an RPI event. Here is an  update: On Saturday, Hornberger announced he is seeking the Libertarian  Partys presidential nomination.

You can watch Hornbergers presidential campaign announcement video here:

----------


## axiomata

If I voted in the Libertarian primary I'd vote for him.  Been subscribed to his FFF email list for years. The daily quote alone is worth the price alone. ($0). He's got a podcast with Richard Ebeling which is also good, even if it lacks the high production quality of some other liberty podcasts.

Here's Ron Paul's forward to his latest book.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Good luck to him on getting the nomination.

----------


## shakey1



----------


## Brian4Liberty

Jacob Hornberger Announces Run for Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination
written by adam dick - saturday november 2, 2019

In April, I wrote that it looked like Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger may run for president of the United States. As I noted then, many people familiar with the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity (RPI) have read some of Hornbergers articles at the RPI website or watched one of his speeches at an RPI event. Here is an update: On Saturday, Hornberger announced he is seeking the Libertarian Partys presidential nomination.

You can watch Hornbergers presidential campaign announcement video here: 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY9_eg2mPuc

----------


## Sammy

I watched his interview with Tom Woods.
I like him. He is 100% right about our healthcare problem. 
But he lost me when he said he supports open borders.

----------


## Stratovarious

> I watched his interview with Tom Woods.
> I like him. He is 100% right about our healthcare problem. 
> But he lost me when he said he supports open borders.


That open border stance loses me too.

He'll just waste a bunch of money and bleed-off some votes from the Rand camp should 
Rand Paul decide to run.

----------


## angelatc

Full disclaimer in case anybody doesn't know that I am #TeamKokesh, but I'll vote for the Libertarian nominee no matter who it is.

----------


## devil21

@Sammy @Stratovarious

In case you haven't figured it out quite yet, you're going to get open borders whether you want them or not.  Best to focus on other policy issues that aren't being directly dictated by the UN and the Vatican when evaluating candidates.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> @Sammy @Stratovarious
> 
> In case you haven't figured it out quite yet, you're going to get open borders whether you want them or not.  Best to focus on other policy issues that aren't being directly dictated by the UN and the Vatican when evaluating candidates.


Preaching surrender and doom for the Vatican eh?

We aren't doomed and will not surrender.

----------


## devil21

> Preaching surrender and doom for the Vatican eh?
> 
> We aren't doomed and will not surrender.


Grab yerself a rifle and head on down to the Rio Grande!  No surrender, right?

smh

Delusional.  Even with Trump acting like the border guard savior, nothing is changing and yet some still be_lie_ve there's a chance that it will change.  Focus on something you can influence, not a 3000 mile stretch that can not and never will be secured.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Grab yerself a rifle and head on down to the Rio Grande!  No surrender, right?
> 
> smh
> 
> Delusional.  Even with Trump acting like the border guard savior, nothing is changing and yet some still be_lie_ve there's a chance that it will change.  Focus on something you can influence, not a 3000 mile stretch that can not and never will be secured.


It is changing and it will change far more and the border can easily be secured.
But keep preaching surrender and doom for the Vatican.
You might as well just go on to say that we should just surrender to their plans entirely since if we couldn't secure the border we couldn't impose any other piece of our agenda or resist any piece of theirs.

----------


## devil21

> It is changing and it will change far more and the border can easily be secured.
> But keep preaching surrender and doom for the Vatican.
> You might as well just go on to say that we should just surrender to their plans entirely since if we couldn't secure the border we couldn't impose any other piece of our agenda or resist any piece of theirs.


Part of growth is realizing what you can change and can not change.  Maybe you will grow enough to learn that some day.


On original topic:
Mr. Hornberger will be visiting with the local LP next month and I will likely go meet him.  If anybody has any questions to ask, I'm happy to do it and report his answers and my thoughts on him.  I may even venture into the world of video interviewing or something crazy like that.

----------


## axiomata

I hope he gets the nomination.

----------


## Anti Globalist

I wish him good luck on his campaign.

----------


## merkelstan

While Hornberger is a fine proponent of libertarian ideals and Austrian Economics, his unreflected support of 'open borders' is problematic. 

  The current debate is not about the principle of open borders per-se ("do we like free movement") and it is either erroneous or malicious to claim that it is.  

This is about an announced plan, implemented over decades, by the globalists to perform demographic replacement migration to european-dominant countries.      

To bracket that out -- to frame the discussion either in the microscopic (those poor families) or the overbroad (but of course we all support freedom) is to deflect from the real problem:    

For now and the forseeable future, the nations of Europe and the United States of America will continue to host a web of interventionist and welfare-state policies; until those are eliminated, no responsible libertarian can condone flooding his nation with migrants tending towards high time-preference, coming from low-trust (war-torn) environments and lacking marketable skills.      

Immigration to current western countries must again be limited to those individuals who demonstrate that they bring the skills, attitudes, traditions and beliefs that are compatible with liberty and private property and the cultural framework of Western, European civilization.      

Jacob would do well to at least acknowledge that,"Principled libertarians can have valid reasons for advocating a restrictive immigration policy under the statist status quo -- while preferring another policy or no territorial borders for their hypothetical libertarian society. These are two different social models and the policy you prefer for one can legitimately differ from the policy you advocate for the other."      

If your gym club membership rules include the stipulation that every gym club member can take money from the wallet in your locker (should they feel or claim that they really need it), then you do have legitimate libertarian grounds to care about whether new members will be people who will take your money or not, until you can either get that rule changed or find another gym club that better respects property rights.      

This objection, this completely obvious and mainstream objection to Hornberger's open-borders policy is the iceberg to his Titanic unless he corrects course.

----------


## merkelstan

While Hornberger is a fine proponent of libertarian ideals and Austrian Economics, his unreflected support of 'open borders' is problematic. 

 The current debate is not about the principle of open borders per-se ("do we like free movement") and it is either erroneous or malicious to claim that it is. 

 This is about an announced plan, implemented over decades, by the globalists to perform demographic replacement migration to european-dominant countries. 

 To bracket that out -- to frame the discussion either in the microscopic (those poor families) or the overbroad (but of course we all support freedom) is to deflect from the real problem: 

 For now and the forseeable future, the nations of Europe and the United States of America will continue to host a web of interventionist and welfare-state policies; until those are eliminated, no responsible libertarian can condone flooding his nation with migrants tending towards high time-preference, coming from low-trust (war-torn) environments and lacking marketable skills. 

 Immigration to current western countries must again be limited to those individuals who demonstrate that they bring the skills, attitudes, traditions and beliefs that are compatible with liberty and private property and the cultural framework of Western, European civilization. 

 Jacob would do well to at least acknowledge that,"Principled libertarians can have valid reasons for advocating a restrictive immigration policy under the statist status quo -- while preferring another policy or no territorial borders for their hypothetical libertarian society. These are two different social models and the policy you prefer for one can legitimately differ from the policy you advocate for the other." 

 If your gym club membership rules include the stipulation that every gym club member can take money from the wallet in your locker (should they feel or claim that they really need it), then you do have legitimate libertarian grounds to care about whether new members will be people who will take your money or not, until you can either get that rule changed or find another gym club that better respects property rights. 

 This objection, this completely obvious and mainstream objection to Hornberger's open-borders policy is the iceberg to his Titanic unless he corrects course.  

 (mods, can you merge the threads on Hornberger candidacy please?)

----------


## PAF

> While Hornberger is a fine proponent of libertarian ideals and Austrian Economics, his unreflected support of 'open borders' is problematic.


Open borders, like private property, is a basic principle of freedom and liberty. It is unfortunate that today’s “republicans” and now many so-called libertarians can not stomach the thought of government not violating that basic principle right. Instead, they relish the thought that government should have that “limited” yet over growing power for the “greater good”, even while choking the freedom to travel freely, demand “papers please”, and taking property which rightfully belongs to individuals and businesses.

Ron Paul, Walter Block and other prominent advocates of liberty, including myself, do understand the ramifications of eminent domain, closed borders and the costs associated with it.

The question/message should not be about closed borders for the “greater good”, but rather government intrusion, theft and restriction of freedoms and free handouts. I hope Jacob brings this to the table to help educate and reverse the statist agenda. There is a distinct difference between private property where one can build a fence if he/she wishes at their own expense and public land which nobody owns and could be homesteaded.

----------


## axiomata

It's nice to see a princpled libertarian running taking principled positions as opposed to GOP positions.

----------


## merkelstan

> It's nice to see a princpled libertarian running taking principled positions as opposed to GOP positions.


  You can't take a principled position that destroys your principles in secondary and tertiary effects.  

  Hornberger's immigration stance says 'yes in principle I like freedom of movement, and i will not look to hinder the freedom of movement to my territorial region to enemies of me, my people, or my property or my rights'.   

 The consequences of this should be considered carefully.   

 "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.  

 Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa.   Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil."  -  Frédéric Bastiat

----------


## merkelstan

> Open borders, like private property, is a basic principle of freedom and liberty.


  Nonsense.  All property rights are exclusionary.  I exclude you from trespassing.  I exclude you from entering.  I exclude you from taking.  I exclude you from vandalizing.    

Not only are property rights intimately tied to the concept of borders and bounds, but all civil society is.   

You transgress a border when you chat with your neighbor in a movie theatre.  You violate a border when you physically grab a stranger. 

 The unwelcome invasion of outside groups into a territory constitutes a cultural aggression, if not a military one.

----------


## PAF

> Nonsense.  All property rights are exclusionary.  I exclude you from trespassing.  I exclude you from entering.  I exclude you from taking.  I exclude you from vandalizing.    
> 
> Not only are property rights intimately tied to the concept of borders and bounds, but all civil society is.   
> 
> You transgress a border when you chat with your neighbor in a movie theatre.  You violate a border when you physically grab a stranger. 
> 
>  The unwelcome invasion of outside groups into a territory constitutes a cultural aggression, if not a military one.


Time for you to study up. Yes, you speak about private property rights, but seem to not understand at a fundamental level. Start by reading my sig.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Open borders, like private property, is a basic principle of freedom and liberty.


WRONG.

It never was and never will be.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Nonsense.  All property rights are exclusionary.  I exclude you from trespassing.  I exclude you from entering.  I exclude you from taking.  I exclude you from vandalizing.    
> 
> Not only are property rights intimately tied to the concept of borders and bounds, but all civil society is.   
> 
> You transgress a border when you chat with your neighbor in a movie theatre.  You violate a border when you physically grab a stranger. 
> 
>  The unwelcome invasion of outside groups into a territory constitutes a cultural aggression, if not a military one.


And in a republic or a democracy it is a political aggression.

----------


## merkelstan

"I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007

----------


## PAF

> And in a republic or a democracy it is a political aggression.


Correct, the republic and/or the democracy being the political aggressor.





> "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


"treat it differently", as in End All Incentives, NOT Eminent Domain of rightful Private Property and Berlin/China walls and "papers please" at tax payer expense.

This is the reason Common Core/FedDeptEd MUST be eliminated; to slow the rapid growth of brainwashed statists who serve the state.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Correct, the republic and/or the democracy being the political aggressor.


LOL
No way, the invaders are the aggressor.
Anarchy would simply allow them to impose their rule on a vacuum.






> "treat it differently", as in End All Incentives, NOT Eminent Domain of rightful Private Property and Berlin/China walls and "papers please" at tax payer expense.
> 
> This is the reason Common Core/FedDeptEd MUST be eliminated; to slow the rapid growth of brainwashed statists who serve the state.


Liberty creates wealth, wealth attracts parasites and parasites destroy liberty, you can't and don't want to eliminate the primary incentive so you must secure the borders and limit immigration.

----------


## acptulsa

> LOL
> No way, the invaders are the aggressor.
> Anarchy would simply allow them to impose their rule on a vacuum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty creates wealth, wealth attracts parasites and parasites destroy liberty, you can't and don't want to eliminate the primary incentive so you must secure the borders and limit immigration.


Liberty does not create wealth, just as presidents don't make countries great again.  People create wealth, and free people create the most wealth.

Free people also have a habit of welcoming immigration, as they need help creating that wealth.  If Republicans worked half as hard at demanding their liberty as they do at being xenophobic, we might be free enough to be starved for employees.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Liberty does not create wealth, just as presidents don't make countries great again.  People create wealth, and free people create the most wealth.


Liberty creates wealth like oxygen creates life.




> Free people also have a habit of welcoming immigration,


A bad habit that undermines their freedom if they welcome too much, just like eating too much is a bad habit.




> as they need help creating that wealth.


No, they do not need help and they certainly don't need so much help that they lose their freedom.




> If Republicans worked half as hard at demanding their liberty as they do at being xenophobic, we might be free enough to be starved for employees.


LOL

Republicans have bent over backwards to immigrants and that is one reason they don't work hard enough at demanding liberty, the immigrants that do vote Republican tend to vote for the worst Republicans and Republicans think they have to appeal to immigrants and their anti-liberty cultures in order to win.

----------


## devil21

> "I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently." - Ron Paul on Meet The Press 23 Dec 2007


Post the whole quote if you're going to quote Dr. Paul.  Don't cherry-pick one sentence.

The full quote, since some here cherry-pick that sentence to make it sound like he said something he didn't.  He most certainly didn't approach it like the LP bashing Trumpers try to imply he did.




> Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.
> 
> A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.


No walls, no deportations, no ICE squads, no FEMA camps, etc.

Dr. Paul's _full_ quote is very much in line with LP platform
https://www.lp.org/platform

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. *All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.*

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason. *To the extent possible, we advocate that all public services be funded in a voluntary manner.*

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Post the whole quote if you're going to quote Dr. Paul.  Don't cherry-pick one sentence.
> 
> The full quote, since some here cherry-pick that sentence to make it sound like he said something he didn't.  He most certainly didn't approach it like the LP bashing Trumpers try to imply he did.
> 
> 
> 
> No walls, no deportations, no ICE squads, no FEMA camps, etc.
> 
> Dr. Paul's _full_ quote is very much in line with LP platform
> ...


The important part of the quote is that things could change so that we would need to treat immigration as an invasion.

That has now happened.

----------


## Swordsmyth

*The talk must stop. We must secure our  borders                                       now. A nation without secure     borders  is    no        nation    at      all.    It       makes    no         sense  to    fight        terrorists    abroad   when    our  own        front    door       is   left             unlocked.    This is my      six     point   plan:*






*Physically secure our borders  and                                       coastlines. We must do whatever  it    takes    to         control       entry      into     our              country   before  we         undertake    complicated             immigration   reform           proposals.**Enforce                                        visa rules. Immigration officials     must    track         visa          holders     and     deport            anyone  who    overstays         their  visa  or       otherwise         violates  U.S.        law.      This      is       especially        important     when  we      recall    that  a    number   of      9/11              terrorists   had        expired    visas.**No                                       amnesty.  Estimates suggest that  10   to   20       million          people   are       in      our         country     illegally.      That’s a      lot  of    people to     reward        for         breaking   our           laws.**No                                   welfare  for     illegal aliens.    Americans    have       welcomed                  immigrants   who      seek           opportunity,   work    hard,   and   play    by    the           rules. But        taxpayers    should  not            pay for         illegal       immigrants     who    use        hospitals,  clinics,         schools,           roads,        and social         services.**End                                        birthright citizenship. As long  as       illegal              immigrants    know     their                children     born here will  be             citizens, the    incentive    to      enter       the    U.S.              illegally       will  remain      strong.**Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million                                        more immigrants into our country,           according    to     the          Heritage               Foundation.     This      is  insanity.    Legal       immigrants         from all       countries                should  face   the   same        rules and     waiting         periods.*





http://archive.is/XoV0h#selection-311.1-349.26 *
*



http://archive.is/HW9aj

MR.     RUSSERT:  You say you're a strict constructionist of the   Constitution,   and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that   children born   here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.REP. PAUL:  Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional.  What's a--what's the contradiction there?
MR. RUSSERT:  So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?
REP. PAUL:      Well, that's constitutional, to do it.  Besides, it was the 14th     Amendment.  It wasn't in the original Constitution.  And there's a,     there's a confusion on interpretation.  In the early years, it was never     interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because     people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if     they're under the jurisdiction of the government.  And somebody who     illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the     jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's     awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill     to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

Well, I start off with saying that it`s a big problem. I 						don`t like to 						 						get involved with the Federal Government very much,  						but I do think it is a 						 						federal responsibility to     protect our borders....And 						that`s why I don`t think our border     guards should be 						sent to Iraq, like we`ve done. I think we  need    more 						border guards. But to have the money and the  personnel, 			 		  	we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.  *Ron Paul*


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty


Totally free 						immigration! I`ve never taken that position...Well,    you work on both. The most important is the 						welfare state, but  you   can still 						 						beef up your borders and get rid of some 						 						incentives for illegals....*Ron Paul*


More at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## angelatc

Can't we invoke the campaign season rules where supporters are allowed to post articles and detractors aren't allowed to troll?  FFS, I literally work for an opposing candidate and I'm not here trashing Hornberger.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Post the whole quote if you're going to quote Dr. Paul.  Don't cherry-pick one sentence.
> 
> The full quote, since some here cherry-pick that sentence to make it sound like he said something he didn't.  He most certainly didn't approach it like the LP bashing Trumpers try to imply he did.
> 
> No walls, no deportations, no ICE squads, no FEMA camps, etc.
> ...


The full quote sounds like a paraphrase and expansion of the famous quote by Milton Friedman: "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state."

Another paraphrase might be that unrestrained immigration is not compatible with a Welfare/Warfare state.

But the thread topic is about Jacob Hornberger. The relevant discussion for this thread is where Hornberger stands on the issue, not where everyone else stands on it.

----------


## devil21

> The full quote sounds like a paraphrase and expansion of the famous quote by Milton Friedman: "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state."
> 
> Another paraphrase might be that unrestrained immigration is not compatible with a Welfare/Warfare state.
> 
> But the thread topic is about Jacob Hornberger. The relevant discussion for this thread is where Hornberger stands on the issue, not where everyone else stands on it.


I wish I could do that but every thread related to the LP quickly becomes a smear fest by the resident GOP xenophobe spokeshandles pushing some variation of divide and conquer.  Thread about Hornberger....<insert RP quote that intends to contradict and divide here>.  Rinse and repeat.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The full quote sounds like a paraphrase and expansion of the famous quote by Milton Friedman: "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state."


That quote is also famous because of being similarly taken out of context. In context, it's clear that Friedman's point is a pro-immigration, and specifically pro-illegal immigration one.

----------


## euphemia

His position on life is admirable.  He says abortion is not a legitimate use of government (duh), but he does not say how he would resolve the truckloads of money the government confiscates from us to fund the industry.

----------


## axiomata

> His position on life is admirable.  He says abortion is not a legitimate use of government (duh), but he does not say how he would resolve the truckloads of money the government confiscates from us to fund the industry.


I'm quite sure his position would be against taxation to fund abortions.




> the funding or subsidization of abortion is not a legitimate function of government, either at a federal or state level.
> 
> Taxation
> Abolish the federal income tax and the IRS.
> 
> People have the fundamental, God-given right to keep everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with it — spend, save, donate, or invest. The right to keep and dispose of the fruits of one’s earnings is a necessary prerequisite to a free society.
> 
> Our American ancestors understood that principle, which is why the American people lived without income taxation for more than a century. When government is prohibited from taking people’s income, the citizens are the masters and the government is the servant.
> 
> ...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The important part of the quote is that things could change so that we would need to treat immigration as an invasion.
> 
> That has now happened.


We get that you think that. Just don't pretend that that's Ron Paul's position. It clearly isn't.

----------


## devil21

Mr. Hornberger will be visiting the local LP meetup on Dec 11.  I plan to ask him to do a short video interview so if anybody has any questions they'd like me to ask him, post them here.  In the absence of your questions, I'll ask him some of the kind of questions that media won't  

devil21 doing video interviews of candidates?  I'm not sure the world is quite ready lol.

----------


## Sammy



----------


## devil21

I met Mr. Hornberger last night.  He was very tired from a long day of campaigning so I didn't bother him with doing a video when he wasn't rested.  Any way, he gave a good speech, seems like a genuinely good person and, for once, a real Libertarian that has a good chance of winning the nomination.  We talked about changes needed in the LP.  I asked if he's ever been a member of the CFR and he said "No" and is quite aware of their role.  He has a lot of good writings online about aspects of the "deep state".  I'm not committing support for him directly at this point but he's definitely a move in the right direction for the LP.  A serious candidate with a serious mission.

Donate to his grassroots campaign at:
http://jacobforliberty.com

Read some of his commentary at:
https://www.fff.org

----------


## kona

Scott Horton and Tom Woods think he's the second best person on the planet after Ron to run. They are joining the LP with Dave Smith and going all in on him.

----------


## phill4paul

I'm sure he's a nice guy and such, but there is only one candidate that is going to cause a, literal, Progressive meltdown. It's just going to be too funny to behold.

----------


## devil21

> I'm sure he's a nice guy and such, but there is only one candidate that is going to cause a, literal, Progressive meltdown. It's just going to be too funny to behold.


Some of us are more interested in getting a good candidate with good policies than merely sustaining ourselves on _other people's angst_.  Kinda sad, really, if you're only concerned with what causes other people pain.

----------


## TheTexan

> Full disclaimer in case anybody doesn't know that I am #TeamKokesh, but I'll vote for the Libertarian nominee no matter who it is.


Thanks for voting

----------


## phill4paul

> Some of us are more interested in getting a good candidate with good policies than merely sustaining ourselves on _other people's angst_.  Kinda sad, really, if you're only concerned with what causes other people pain.


  He has a fish farts chance of winning or even getting his message out. I'll settle for driving Progressives into a frenzy in which they totally expose themselves for what they are.

----------


## devil21

> He has a fish farts chance of winning or even getting his message out. I'll settle for driving Progressives into a frenzy in which they totally expose themselves for what they are.


A sad existence you've developed for yourself, phil.  Truly sad.

----------


## acptulsa

> He has a fish farts chance of winning or even getting his message out. I'll settle for driving Progressives into a frenzy in which they totally expose themselves for what they are.


That's like spending your days running west to keep the earth spinning.  One, you don't have enough lead in your ass to do it.  Two, the earth will spin whether you try to help it or not.

Your voice isn't loud enough to drive them all into a frenzy.  And they don't need your impetus to expose themselves...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ittee-Democrat

----------


## phill4paul

> A sad existence you've developed for yourself, phil.  Truly sad.


If you say so. <shrug>

----------


## kona

Gary Johnson got significant airtime. So will Hornberger, but he will make the most of it. It will be beautiful to watch.

----------


## Krugminator2

In between defending Marxist leaders, Hornberger is a big fan of $#@!ting on Justin Amash and Rand Paul.

He would be terrible choice for the LP.

----------


## devil21

> In between defending Marxist leaders, Hornberger is a big fan of $#@!ting on Justin Amash and Rand Paul.
> 
> He would be terrible choice for the LP.


It's campaign primary season so of course there will be attacks between candidates.  Hornberger's line of attack is obviously pretty weak but that's because Amash is otherwise difficult to attack.  Hornberger knows that if/when Amash declares he will suck a lot of the air out of the room that Hornberger has been campaigning hard to win for months.  *I like both of them as great candidates, but for different reasons, and you suggesting that Hornberger is "terrible" is actually more of an endorsement of the CIA on your part than anything Amash did or Hornberger commented on.*

I didn't watch the second video because even though I like Rand, there's been _plenty_ to attack him on from a Libertarian perspective.

----------


## Sammy

> ]In between defending Marxist leaders[/B], Hornberger is a big fan of $#@!ting on Justin Amash and Rand Paul.


Which one? I know nothing about that.

----------


## clint4liberty

Personally, I was hoping for a Amash/Sharpe ticket.

----------


## merkelstan

Even Scott Horton has publicly admitted to being "very disappointed" in Hornberger now.

Hornberger bends the knee to our globalist enemies by cheering the active importation of the world's worst people into our welfare-warfare state.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Even Scott Horton has publicly admitted to being "very disappointed" in Hornberger now.
> 
> Hornberger bends the knee to our globalist enemies by cheering the active importation of the world's worst people into our welfare-warfare state.


Considering how divisive the issue of immigration is in  the liberty community, it's surprising that Hornberger focuses on it so much. It's like his biggest issue.

----------


## Sammy

> Considering how divisive the issue of immigration is in  the liberty community, it's surprising that Hornberger focuses on it so much. It's like his biggest issue.






Jacob Hornberger has decided to pander to illegal aliens.
It's really sad since his fantastic on issues like Foreign Policy,Government spending & Guns!

----------


## merkelstan

It might be tolerable if his open-borders policy were contingent on ending the 'migration into public services' problem.

[EDIT] Well that video was absolutely SICKENING.

----------


## devil21

> Even Scott Horton has publicly admitted to being "very disappointed" in Hornberger now.


Who?  

Oh, the guy that took over antiwar after the founder died recently, who is married to a russian born rawstory.com editor with long SJW history?

If you haven't learned by now that EVERY influential media (MSM and alternative) is quickly co-opted whenever possible, you're still behind the curve.  Stop following personalities!  It's strange that Horton would have a problem with Hornberger's position on immigration yet is married to a NYC SJW.  If you don't support immigration that's fine but for the love of the creator, please stop pushing media mouthpieces as the justification for your position.




> Hornberger bends the knee to our globalist enemies by cheering the active importation of the world's worst people into our welfare-warfare state.


Damn those globalist enemies.  We must vote for Donald again to prevent things like USMCA from being signed into law, right?

Here's a clue.  An "illegal immigrant" has more Constitutional rights than you do, "citizen".

(Some of y'all are so mentally confused in your political positions that I'm surprised the cognitive dissonance isn't physically painful.)

----------


## devil21

> Jacob Hornberger has decided to pander to illegal aliens.
> It's really sad since his fantastic on issues like Foreign Policy,Government spending & Guns!


Newsflash:  Illegal immigrants have more Constitutional rights than you do.  Now ask yourself why some would want you to hate them?

----------


## PAF

> Who?  
> 
> Oh, the guy that took over antiwar after the founder died recently, who is married to a russian born rawstory.com editor with long SJW history?
> 
> If you haven't learned by now that EVERY influential media (MSM and alternative) is quickly co-opted whenever possible, you're still behind the curve.  Stop following personalities!  It's strange that Horton would have a problem with Hornberger's position on immigration yet is married to a NYC SJW.  If you don't support immigration that's fine but for the love of the creator, please stop pushing media mouthpieces as the justification for your position.
> 
> 
> 
> *Damn those globalist enemies.  We must vote for Donald again to prevent things like USMCA from being signed into law, right?
> ...



1,000 +REP's

----------


## PAF

> *Newsflash:  Illegal immigrants have more Constitutional rights than you do.  Now ask yourself why some would want you to hate them?*

----------


## Sammy

> Newsflash:  Illegal immigrants have more Constitutional rights than you do.  Now ask yourself why some would want you to hate them?


Promoting open Borders is popular with Globalists,Neocons & the socialist left.
You just sided with Ilhan Omar,Ocasio Cortez & Bill Kristol!Congratulations!

----------


## Sammy

[QUOTE=devil21;6948911

(Some of y'all are so mentally confused in your political positions that I'm surprised the cognitive dissonance isn't physically painful.)[/QUOTE]

I could say the same thing about Open Borders supporters.

----------


## PAF

> Promoting open Borders is popular with Globalists,Neocons & the socialist left.
> You just sided with Ilhan Omar,Ocasio Cortez & Bill Kristol!Congratulations!


No. The simple fact is, todays republicans/conservatives or whatever they pretend to call themselves these days, are yesterdays nationalist-commie bastards. They have been so brainwashed by the Statists and Common Core that anything pertaining to freedom, liberty, private property and private contracts rights, and the right to freely travel, is somehow equated to associate with Globalists, Ilhan Omar, Ocasio Cortez & Bill Kristol.

It is to the point and so pathetic that any mention of ending welfare/incentives is off limits, or repeatedly told that it is not "realistic". So, we who believe in freedom and liberty are shunned like Ron Paul was in 2012 when the newz began repeating over and over "where did Ron Paul go?", when he was drawing supporters into the thousands at each and every rally.

That is where we are today, and the precise reason why the biotech/pharmaceutical/police state apparatus are full steam ahead.

But, somebody has to "win". Right?

----------


## Sammy

> No. The simple fact is, todays republicans/conservatives or whatever they pretend to call themselves these days, are yesterdays nationalist-commie bastards. They have been so brainwashed by the Statists and Common Core that anything pertaining to freedom, liberty, private property and private contracts rights, and the right to freely travel, is somehow equated to associate with Globalists, Ilhan Omar, Ocasio Cortez & Bill Kristol.
> 
> It is to the point and so pathetic that any mention of ending welfare/incentives is off limits, or repeatedly told that it is not "realistic". So, we who believe in freedom and liberty are shunned like Ron Paul was in 2012 when the newz began repeating over and over "where did Ron Paul go?", when he was drawing supporters into the thousands at each and every rally.
> 
> That is where we are today, and the precise reason why the biotech/pharmaceutical/police state apparatus are full steam ahead.
> 
> But, somebody has to "win". Right?


Most Republicans are crypto Socialists they are not Conservatives & they are not Nationalists they are Globalists!
Open Borders is trespassing. I have no right to go your house & demand something from you.
About 3-5% of Americans support ending the welfare state (I'm one of them) but this is not realistic since we have a mob rule democracy.
Do you agree with me that we should abolish Democracy?

----------


## PAF

> Most Republicans are crypto Socialists they are not Conservatives & they are not Nationalists they are Globalists!


Names, labels... I stand on principles; NAP, 10 Bill of Rights, 10 Commandments.




> Open Borders is trespassing. I have no right to go your house & demand something from you.


Typical of the Common Core student, and current nationalist-communist trends. I believe you are confusing privately owned land (whether home-owner or business-owner), with unowned land, which could be homesteaded. Open borders is _not_ trespassing, unless the property is privately owned. I should have the right to freely migrate and find unowned, unused land and homestead it, whether I wish to build a house, farm or business.




> About 3-5% of Americans support ending the welfare state (I'm one of them) but this is not realistic since we have a mob rule democracy.


"Not realistic". That seems to be the popular rhetoric as we move to a full-blown nationalistic police state. And it is working quite effectively.




> Do you agree with me that we should abolish Democracy?


Democracy is rule by mob, where the rights of the 49% are dictated by the 51%.


1. Do you believe Natural Rights (which are outlined in the Bill of Rights) apply _only_ to Americans?

2. Do you believe that Contract Rights should be abolished, and minimum wage should be determined and mandated by the government?

3. Do you believe your Private Property should be reallocated, by government/democracy, for the "betterment of the whole"?

4. Do you believe that you should pay your hard-earned money for somebody else's problem whether on the other side of the state or country?

5. Do you believe that everybody should be documented to distinguish them from you, stored in government databases, and required to show your papers in the interest of "national security"? In other words, do you believe the 4th Amendment is outdated and should be abolished?

6. Do you believe that you should pay welfare/incentives to those who become "legal" and "documented" by the government?

----------


## devil21

> Promoting open Borders is popular with Globalists,Neocons & the socialist left.
> You just sided with Ilhan Omar,Ocasio Cortez & Bill Kristol!Congratulations!


That's weird because I've never heard of any of them talking about Constitutional rights and the difference between an "alien" and a "citizen" in the legal system.  Btw, that whole "ur a libtard!1!!1" stuff doesn't work on me.  Save that grade school peer pressure stuff for the Breitbart crowd.

----------


## merkelstan

> Who?  
> 
> Oh, the guy that took over antiwar after the founder died recently, who is married to a russian born rawstory.com editor with long SJW history?
> 
> If you haven't learned by now that EVERY influential media (MSM and alternative) is quickly co-opted whenever possible, you're still behind the curve.  Stop following personalities!  It's strange that Horton would have a problem with Hornberger's position on immigration yet is married to a NYC SJW.  If you don't support immigration that's fine but for the love of the creator, please stop pushing media mouthpieces as the justification for your position.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn those globalist enemies.  We must vote for Donald again to prevent things like USMCA from being signed into law, right?
> ...


You must feel very clever.  But you are not.   Identified.

----------


## Cap

> No. The simple fact is, todays republicans/conservatives or whatever they pretend to call themselves these days, are yesterdays nationalist-commie bastards. They have been so brainwashed by the Statists and Common Core that anything pertaining to freedom, liberty, private property and private contracts rights, and the right to freely travel, is somehow equated to associate with Globalists, Ilhan Omar, Ocasio Cortez & Bill Kristol.
> 
> It is to the point and so pathetic that any mention of ending welfare/incentives is off limits, or repeatedly told that it is not "realistic". So, we who believe in freedom and liberty are shunned like Ron Paul was in 2012 when the newz began repeating over and over "where did Ron Paul go?", when he was drawing supporters into the thousands at each and every rally.
> 
> That is where we are today, and the precise reason why the biotech/pharmaceutical/police state apparatus are full steam ahead.
> 
> But, somebody has to "win". Right?


You know PAF, this post really impressed me. Your critical thinking skills are top notch. Some people tend to be lazy or are just not capable of assembling enough brain cells and as a result, they follow their tribe. Critical thinking on this site is becoming scarce.

----------


## devil21

> You must feel very clever.  But you are not.   Identified.


Oh noes!  Identified?  What ever shall I do?!?!

----------


## merkelstan

> You know PAF, this post really impressed me. Your critical thinking skills are top notch. Some people tend to be lazy or are just not capable of assembling enough brain cells and as a result, they follow their tribe. Critical thinking on this site is becoming scarce.


Someone who unironically uses the phrase "nationalist-commie bastard" has either NO KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY, or is SHILLING.

----------


## Cap

> Someone who unironically uses the phrase "nationalist-commie bastard" has either NO KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY, or is SHILLING.


LOL

----------


## merkelstan

There's another one.

----------

