jmdrake

jmdrake

Member
Joined
Last seen
Viewing forum list
Messages
51,887
Reaction score
7,999
Points
113

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • jmdrake
    I'm not expecting Rand to get "more libertarian". I'm saying that he already is doing a lot better than I expected. I never would have predicted a filabuster against drone strikes or Rand seeking a resolution to repeal the Iraq AUMF based on my expectations of him. Rand could have run a purist campaign and MAYBE won a house seat. Would another Justin Amash in the house be worth more than a Rand in the senate? I don't think so. Maybe you do. As you say, to each his own.
    C
    We're basically not allowed to criticize Rand in his subforum. Its not just that its not considered acceptable, its downright forbidden in at least some cases.

    As for the strategic end, Rand is not going to suddenly get more libertarian if/when he gets elected. That seems obvious to me. But... maybe I'm wrong. I can't play that game though. The thing I most loved about Ron was his consistency and honesty. Even before I actually agreed with him I felt that way. Rand is playing moderate on almost everything and its starting to get to me.

    To each his own, of course.

    Rand's answer on Guantanamo was, of course, awful. There's also this neat little gem that I just found:

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/rand-paul-wants-to-know-where-every.html
    C
    I don't know the answers to all of this, so I don't judge the pro-Rand people here, but I don't think I can reward his pandering. We need somebody who will go into the debates and actually stand up for liberty. I don't expect anyone to get every single issue right, but Rand's deviations are pretty severe. Ted Cruz is more libertarian than he is on economic issues, and Obama is less hawkish than Rand against Iran. Now, I'd agree that Rand is better than either of those when you put all the issues together, but when you factor in the inevitable shift towards the center that occurs in general elections, and then factor in the compromises made during governing, its really not much. Or, at least, I don't think it is.
    C
    I can't read minds. I don't know for sure why Rand Paul is cozying up to the warmongerers as much as he is. But if he actually votes "yes" on these sanctions during negotiations, while Obama is threatening to veto, no less, that would make him more hawkish on this issue than Obama.

    I'm getting sick of Rand Paul anyways. I'm sick of the pandering. You can't win by pandering to the whims of the sheep, you can only win by opening their eyes. I know that's unlikely, but expecting that someone will just sneak through, get the votes of the sheep, and then govern in a libertarian manner seems really, really unlikely. Everyone would say that the idea was absolute crap if it wasn't Ron Paul's son. Few would actually trust Rand, or let some of his comments go, if they didn't believe that everything Ron says about his son is literally true.

    (My post was too long, give me 30 seconds and part II will be up.)
    C
    I have to agree with you on this being silly. I don't see why it matters what subforum the thread is in.

    That said, a thread about ghosts got into the hot topics forum, so I have to agree with Sola that they are a little biased, even if it doesn't actually bother me as much as it does him (I've been in places WAY more biased than this, by far.)

    Watching the two of you debate was possibly the most entertaining part of the religion subforum:p Oh well;)
    Bastiat's The Law
    Ron Paul doesn't sound like a conspiracy kook, but the kooks rally around him for some reason. Even when you point out to them that Ron Paul doesn't believe 9/11 was orchestrated by the government, TRUTHERS still latch onto him. They're trying to sabotage us on purpose.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Back
Top