# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Can Justin Amash Win Reelection As An Independent?

## Warlord

Analysis here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...n-independent/

----------


## Swordsmyth

NO

----------


## Sammy

I don't think Amash can win.

----------


## EBounding

The odds are against him, but he can win re-election.  I'd say he has a better chance than Rand or Ron's presidential runs, and everyone here supported those.  Justin's chances will improve if there's a bloody primary and both sides end up choosing terrible candidates. That is happening so far, at least on the Republican side.

----------


## Warlord

Justin is not raising enough money to ensure he is competitive!  

Time is short.  He needs to start raising dough or he's going down.

I wonder if any outside groups will come to his rescue like Club4Growth or FreedomWorks because his voting record is practically impeccable.

----------


## EBounding

> Justin is not raising enough money to ensure he is competitive!  
> 
> Time is short.  He needs to start raising dough or he's going down.
> 
> I wonder if any outside groups will come to his rescue like Club4Growth or FreedomWorks because his voting record is practically impeccable.


I don't think the Club4Trump will be helping out.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Why would a hardworking individual donate their hard earned money to a campaign that considers a $900k donation a drop in the bucket?


You are confusing multiple things here.

----------


## Schifference

> You are confusing multiple things here.


When a person is confused about what to do with their hard earned money the smart thing is to keep it.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Amash is winning already.
Winning is not always just 'winning next election election', in many worthwhile movements winning an immediate election can be secondary.

*Donald Trump: Ron Paul Can't Win* 
CBS News
Feb 10, 2011 - "Ron Paul cannot get elected, I'm sorry," Trump said to a rowdy ... CPAC (he won the straw poll last year) - rose to their feet and cheered Trump.


  The way tide is shifting and GOPA wing is coming out as a puppet of globalist neocons, political landscape can change again in a hurry. Trump rallied for KY Gov and he just lost election

*Virginia cyclist who flipped off Trump's motorcade wins race for local office*

*KY GOP Governor Loses in the State Trump Won by 30 Points*
Trump supported KY candidate loses in deep-red state



Trump told Kentucky to make the governor’s race all about him. And they did. And his guy lost.
Nov 6, 2019

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Amash is winning already.
> Winning is not always just 'winning next election election', in many worthwhile movements winning an immediate election can be secondary.


Amash is losing, unless his goal is to make people hate libertarianism and associate it with treason.

----------


## PAF

Libertarianism is not a practical solution. Libertarianism combined with Agorism is a practical solution.

Ron Paul won when he retired from CONgress. Justin leaving the REPUG Party on the 4th is a pretty good start. Perhaps someday he will take over where Ron leaves off.

Treason. As an individualist, anything which opposes my willful consent, as long as I do no harm to person or property, is treason against me plain and simple.

----------


## specsaregood

> There has been one other Congressmen in the last 100 years who vote like Massie and Amash. Ron Paul.


I dunno, I hear that Larry McDonald was pretty good too.



> McDonald, who considered himself a traditional Democrat "cut from the cloth of Jefferson and Jackson", was known for his conservative views, even by Southern standards. In fact, one scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science[6] named him the second most conservative member of either chamber of Congress between 1937 and 2002 (behind only Ron Paul).[7] 
> 
> The American Conservative Union gave him a perfect score of 100 every year he was in the House of Representatives, except in 1978, when he scored a 95.[8] He also scored "perfect or near perfect ratings" on the congressional scorecards of the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Security Council.[9] McDonald was referred to by The New American as "the leading anti-Communist in Congress"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Libertarianism is not a practical solution. Libertarianism combined with Agorism is a practical solution.
> 
> Ron Paul won when he retired from CONgress. Justin leaving the REPUG Party on the 4th is a pretty good start. Perhaps someday he will take over where Ron leaves off.
> 
> Treason. As an individualist, anything which opposes my willful consent, as long as I do no harm to person or property, is treason against me plain and simple.


Surrender and abandoning the field to the enemy are not the path to victory.
And it's an insult that you dared to compare Ron's retirement to such an idea, he spent most of his life fighting the good fight and only retired when he was too old to continue.

----------


## acptulsa

> And it's an insult that you dared to compare...


No, it isn't.  It's just free speech.

Who appointed you to the office of Tyrannical Gatekeeper of the Speech?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, it isn't.  It's just free speech.
> 
> Who appointed you to the office of Tyrannical Gatekeeper of the Speech?


Insults are covered by free speech.
Only liberals think otherwise.

----------


## acptulsa

> Insults are covered by free speech.
> Only liberals think otherwise.


Then why are you talking about what he *dared* to say?  Just so we'd know you're a prog?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Then why are you talking about what he *dared* to say?  Just so we'd know you're a prog?


It's kind of daring to insult Ron on this site dedicated to him.
You are the one who outed yourself by exposing that you think that if it was an insult it wouldn't be covered by free speech.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's kind of daring to insult Ron on this site dedicated to him.


You should know.  You're the king of, "Ron is wrong."




> You are the one who outed yourself by exposing that you think that if it was an insult it wouldn't be covered by free speech.


Oh, come on.  You can come up with better spin than that.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You should know.  You're the king of, "Ron is wrong."


It's not a crime to be wrong about something, almost nobody is right about everything.






> Oh, come on.  You can come up with better spin than that.


It's not spin, you are the one who says government should restrict political speech.
Don't make me dig up the post where you said Ron was wrong about Citizens United.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's not a crime to be wrong about something, almost nobody is right about everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not spin, you are the one who says government should restrict political speech.
> Don't make me dig up the post where you said Ron was wrong about Citizens United.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> 


I hope you didn't hurt yourself.

----------


## acptulsa

> I hope you didn't hurt yourself.


Not even a little bit.  Ron Paul does not believe in corporate personhood.

He believes people should have unlimited free speech, and beyond the people in it, corporations have zero right to free speech.

The Citizens United decision contradicts that by granting corporations more speech than the sum of the citizens involved in them.  When did I contradict that position?  Do quote me.

Hope you don't hurt yourself again.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Not even a little bit.  Ron Paul does not believe in corporate personhood.
> 
> He believes people should have unlimited free speech, and beyond the people in it, corporations have zero right to free speech.
> 
> The Citizens United decision contradicts that by granting corporations more speech than the sum of the citizens involved in them.  When did I contradict that position?  Do quote me.
> 
> Hope you don't hurt yourself again.


You are disagreeing with him right now.
Misrepresenting his position won't help you.
*Ron Paul Rages "Campaign Finance Reform? Don't Make Me Laugh!"*


> *Campaign Finance Reform Helps Special Interests*
> 
>   One of the new Democratic House majority’s top priorities is   so-called campaign finance reform legislation. Contrary to the claims of   its supporters, campaign finance reform legislation *does not limit the influence of powerful special interests.* Instead, it violates the First Amendment and *burdens those seeking real change in government.*
> 
> *The First Amendment of the Constitution forbids Congress from   interfering in any way with any citizen’s ability to influence   government policies.* Spending money to support candidates and   causes is one way individuals influence government policies. Therefore,   laws limiting and regulating donations to campaigns and organizations   that work to change government policies violate the First Amendment.
>   One very troubling aspect of campaign finance reform laws is *forcing organizations involved in “electioneering” to hand over the names of their top donors to the federal government.*   Electioneering is broadly defined to include informing the public of   candidates’ positions and records, even if the group in question focuses   solely on advancing issues and ideas. Burdening these types of   organizations will make it harder for individuals to learn the truth   about candidates’ positions.
> *America has a long and distinguished tradition of anonymous political speech.*   Both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers where published   anonymously. As Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in NAACP v. Alabama,   where the Supreme Court upheld the NAACP’s right to keep its membership   list confidential, “Inviolability of privacy in group association may  in  many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of   association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.”
> _Supporters of groups with “dissident beliefs” have good reason to fear new disclosure laws._   In 2014, the IRS had to pay 50,000 dollars to the National  Organization  for Marriage because an IRS employee leaked donors names  to the  organization’s opponents. *Fortunately, the Trump  administration  has repealed the regulation forcing activist groups to  disclose their  donors to the IRS. Unfortunately, Congress seems poised  to reinstate  that rule.*
>   In recent years, we have seen the* rise of authoritarian   political movements that think harassment and even violence against   those with differing views are acceptable tactics*. Can anyone   doubt that activists in these movements would do all they could to   obtain the lists of donors to groups that oppose their agenda? They may   be able to obtain the lists either by hacking government databases or  by  *having a sympathetic federal employee “accidentally” leak the names.*
> ...


And you should remember because you posted in the thread.

----------


## acptulsa

> You are disagreeing with him right now.


How?

You made the charge.  Don't be Adam Schiff.  Be specific.  And remember, misrepresenting Ron Paul's position won't help you.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> How?
> 
> You made the charge.  Don't be Adam Schiff.  Be specific.  And remember, misrepresenting Ron Paul's position won't help you.


Try reading.
Ron says groups have speech rights and that giving them money to speak for you is speech.

----------


## acptulsa

> Try reading.
> Ron says groups have speech rights and that giving them money to speak for you is speech.


Wrong.  Ron says citizens have the right to speak in groups.

And I did not contradict that.

What your straw man friend that looks kinda like me said, I neither know nor care.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Wrong.  Ron says citizens have the right to speak in groups.
> 
> And I did not contradict that.
> 
> What your straw man friend that looks kinda like me said, I neither know nor care.


That's the same thing but you support government restrictions on citizens speaking in groups.

Ron:




> *The First Amendment of the Constitution forbids Congress from    interfering in any way with any citizen’s ability to influence    government policies.* Spending money to support candidates and    causes is one way individuals influence government policies. Therefore,    laws limiting and regulating donations to campaigns and organizations    that work to change government policies violate the First Amendment.





> Money does not equal speech, in my mind.

----------


## acptulsa

> That's the same thing but you support government restrictions on citizens speaking in groups.
> 
> Ron:


I support corporations not having unlimited ability to contribute to politicians where individual citizens _are_ limited.

Tell us again how you're spinning that fact...?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I support corporations not having unlimited ability to contribute to politicians where individual citizens _are_ limited.
> 
> Tell us again how you're spinning that fact...?


You support the limits on groups, the correct answer is to remove the limits on individuals.
And you deny that spending money on political speech is protected by the 1stA.

----------


## acptulsa

> You support the limits on groups, the correct answer is to remove the limits on individuals.
> And you deny that spending money on political speech is protected by the 1stA.


You say, the correct remedy is...  But Ron Paul denies corporate personhood.  He says corporations have _no rights whatsoever_ apart from the rights of the people involved in it.

And months later, you're _still_ harping on this nothing burger.  I'm flattered.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You say, the correct remedy is...  But Ron Paul denies corporate personhood.  He says corporations have _no rights whatsoever_ apart from the rights of the people involved in it.
> 
> And months later, you're _still_ harping on this nothing burger.  I'm flattered.


He says the groups (composed of individuals) have speech rights and the restrictions are wrong, you support the restrictions by trying to pretend that the groups are distinct from the individuals that compose them.
He says money to buy political speech is speech and protected by the 1stA, you say money isn't speech and isn't protected by the 1stA.

I only brought it up because you denied supporting restrictions on speech and disagreeing with Ron.

Having proven both I am happy to return this thread to a discussion of how Amash will lose because he endorsed a treasonous coup.

----------


## acptulsa

> He says the groups (composed of individuals) have speech rights and the restrictions are wrong, you support the restrictions by trying to pretend that the groups are distinct from the individuals that compose them.


And how does Ron disagree with that and oppose corporate personhood at the same time?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And how does Ron disagree with that and oppose corporate personhood at the same time?


We aren't talking about corporate personhood.
We are talking about the restrictions on the speech rights of the members of the groups by restricting the groups.
Ron opposes the restrictions and you support them.

----------


## acptulsa

> ...by trying to pretend that the groups are distinct from the individuals that compose them.





> We aren't talking about corporate personhood.


Keep spinning it.

Now that you've filled this thread with your opinions, keep demonstrating how much of a down payment on a cup of coffee they might get us.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Keep spinning it.
> 
> Now that you've filled this thread with your opinions, keep demonstrating how much of a down payment on a cup of coffee they might get us.


Corporate personhood would be more like what you are pushing by saying the group is anything but the sum of the individuals that compose it.

----------


## acptulsa



----------

