A few liberals are cheering on Rand

[TheGrinch]

I never discounted anything or called anything hypocritical. I just don't know what the common ground actually is here. I thought maybe someone here would.

What other possible reason could there be besides comoon ground for liberals to cheer on rand?

 

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Wow, it's much worse than I thought. The Congressional support of Rand Paul [House and Senate] was a mere .0472 percent. /Sigh

The House had nothing to do with this. In the Senate I think it was 9 Senators who supported Rand, so including him that's 10% of the Senate.

 

[erowe1]

What other possible reason could there be besides comoon ground for liberals to cheer on rand?

I don't know.

But my question wasn't whether or not there is common ground. It was what that common ground is if it exists. I just don't understand it is all. It takes me a long time to figure things out, so I ask a lot of questions.

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't know.

But my question wasn't whether or not there is common ground. It was what that common ground is if it exists. I just don't understand it is all. It takes me a long time to figure things out, so I ask a lot of questions.

As I said earlier, not all liberals have abandoned their "anti-war" (for lack of a better term).

Common ground does not mean full agreement, it means agreement on a matter despite ideological differences.

Perhaps you could say it is hypocritical, but then you'd be painting with a broad brush and resorting to labels, when that might not even be the case for those few who identify more with liberal democrats but may be 100% consistent on matters like this.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The House had nothing to do with this. In the Senate I think it was 9 Senators who supported Rand, so including him that's 10% of the Senate.

I heard 15. Then there were an additional 15 members from the House who showed up to offer support or tweeted in support of Rand Paul's quest for answers. That was how I got to my number of .0472 percent [30/635] of Congress isn't worthless. Though even if we just went with the 15 out of 100 Senators supporting Paul the odds still aren't very good. [I believe Rand Paul stated that there was 15 Senators behind him on this] I really would like to think all of our Senators would be behind this. It's amazing to me that something so simple is so hard to get a consensus on.

 

[erowe1]

As I said earlier, not all liberals have abandoned their "anti-war" (for lack of a better term).

Common ground does not mean full agreement, it means agreement on a matter despite ideological differences.

Perhaps you could say it is hypocritical, but then you'd be painting with a broad brush and resorting to labels, when that might not even be the case for those few who identify more with liberal democrats but may be 100% consistent on matters like this.

But, even if their ideology isn't mine, do they still have some ideology that compels them to be against the regime using drones at its own discretion against whomever it decides wherever it decides? If so, then what in their ideology leads them to that conclusion? If not, then what's behind their cheering on Rand, just some gut feeling that they don't realize undermines everything else they stand for?

 

[jmdrake]

COMMON GROUND

We cannot continue to keep acting like those we disagree with are the problem, especially when they're willing to look past party towards shared principles. We will never get anything done by painting ourselves into a corner.

This is an AMERICAN issue, not a partisan one, so I'm very happy some are looking past party to show respect for a politician actually doing what's right and standing for principle (a rare thing nowadays).

It's been said before that half the reason we're here is shared ideology, the other (and perhaps more important) reason is that we stand for integrity. That is what will unite us against the disingenuous establsihments, and actually get a real debate going.

 

[erowe1]

I heard 15. Then there were an additional 15 members from the House who showed up to offer support or tweeted in support of Rand Paul's quest for answers. That was how I got to my number of .0472 percent [30/635] of Congress isn't worthless

It's 535, not 635.

And 30/535 = 0.056 = 5.6%

 

[jmdrake]

What are the shared principles?

If the state isn't allowed to use deadly force in ways that the rest of us aren't allowed, then what's left of the state at all?

The state being allowed to use deadly force in ways the rest of us aren't != the state being allowed to use deadly force indiscriminately.

Seriously, you will have a hard time finding a republican that doesn't go along with some kind of variation of "state should have monopoly on the use of force" argument and you'll have a hard time finding a democrat who says "state should be able to indiscriminately kill people without any recourse."

And to answer your initial question, the reason you don't see more dems standing up (though I've seen more than the ones you've mentioned including Amy Goodman of Democracy Now) is the same reason you didn't see that many republicans coming out against "Medicare part D."

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It's 535, not 635.

And 30/535 = 0.056 = 5.6%

Lmao. Very true.

Damn I'm stupid sometimes.

 

[jmdrake]

But, even if their ideology isn't mine, do they still have some ideology that compels them to be against the regime using drones at its own discretion against whomever it decides wherever it decides? If so, then what in their ideology leads them to that conclusion? If not, then what's behind their cheering on Rand, just some gut feeling that they don't realize undermines everything else they stand for?

Not sure if serious. If you are serious then realize this. Liberals in their core are against extra-judicial killing. It's hyperbole to claim otherwise. That doesn't mean they won't give their own team a "pass" the same way conservatives will give their own team a "pass" on increased government spending.

 

[erowe1]

The state being allowed to use deadly force in ways the rest of us aren't != the state being allowed to use deadly force indiscriminately.

Seriously, you will have a hard time finding a republican that doesn't go along with some kind of variation of "state should have monopoly on the use of force" argument and you'll have a hard time finding a democrat who says "state should be able to indiscriminately kill people without any recourse."

And to answer your initial question, the reason you don't see more dems standing up (though I've seen more than the ones you've mentioned including Amy Goodman of Democracy Now) is the same reason you didn't see that many republicans coming out against "Medicare part D."

This isn't about killing people indiscriminately. It's about the state having the right to decide what the criteria are according to which they kill people.

 

[erowe1]

Liberals in their core are against extra-judicial killing.

I have trouble believing that.

 

[unknown]

Not many, but some. And I'm wondering why.

Isn't their whole system of government built on the exact thing Rand was railing against?

Yes! BUT you'd never fugging know it. NEITHER Party stands for anything anymore, in practice anyway.

I have to re-link this Glenn Greenwald article because he does a really good job at making this very point:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

 

[romacox]

Americans use to be very individualistic in their thinking making it hard to control them. So the globalists set a goal to divide us by convincing us to find our identity in groups (Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, ext). Thus we can't even unite over one simple issue that most Americans agree on as did the Icelanders. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, even warned that the party system could be used to manipulate and divide us. Most libertarians have not fallen for many of CFR tactics, except for this one. If my neighbor will stand with me on one issue, but not another, I welcome them.

Party lines be dammed. We are the People as the Constitution describes us.

 

[supermario21]

Bob Beckel on The Five just said the "isolationist" wing of the Republican Party which has usually been right over the years may be taking over the party again, and lashed out at the neocons always wanting to commit troops lately. Eric Bolling appeared slightly disturbed LOL.

 

[jmdrake]

This isn't about killing people indiscriminately. It's about the state having the right to decide what the criteria are according to which they kill people.

The executive branch making the decision by itself to kill people posing no imminent threat is virtually killing people indiscriminately.

I have trouble believing that.

Just because you have trouble believing something doesn't make it any less true. You've provided no evidence for your position that liberals are in general the blood thirsty SOBs willing to give the executive branch the ability to kill without recourse that you are claiming they are. But hey, prove me wrong. Go to a local liberal hang out. Do an "insta-poll." Ask people you run into "Do you think that the government should be able to kill American citizens on U.S. soil without trial just because the president says so?" and get back with me.

 

[twomp]

I have trouble believing that.

You are painting with a broad brush as if EVERY SINGLE liberal is the same. Just because they don't protest in the streets against Obama like the they did for Bush, doesn't mean they still don't believe that. It's just the organizers are now Obama supporters and don't want to speak out against him.

If you come to California and you took a poll on street of just normal every day Californians, you would quickly realize this. Just ask them if the government has a right to kill its people without due process, and I'm sure you will find your answer. Your problem is that the perception you have of "liberals" has been painted for you by the media.

We are all Americans and despite what the media has told you all the LIBERALS in the world aren't evil and hellbent on the destruction of America. It's just the ones that are in charge that are the problem. Hell, I'm sure you run across these evil liberals every day and you may not even know it.

 

[Barrex]

The liberals are worthless. I think Dennis Kucinich, Ron Wyden, HuffPo, Glenn Greenwald, Code Pink, and The Young Turks are the only people I've actually heard on the left complain. They're just as much team blue as many on the right are team red. We just have to keep fighting and organizing like we did last night. Trending #1 in the WORLD. Republicans would be stupid to ignore our youth movement, especially considering our youth are actually engaged and not just Obamabots.

Hm. Huge flaw in this logic. "We" (if you mean libertarians?) didnt organize anything. Trending #1 in the WORLD happen because Rands message and action reached entire population and not because libertarians were organizing by posting on forums. Impact of "organizing" can not be measured(in this case). All we can do is guess. My guess is that it contributed less than 5%... you are guessing higher percentage (100%?) ?


People have sometimes distorted picture of things (Alaska GOP 100000 dollars money-bomb;same with Iowa, Maine and some other things).

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/rand-paul-filibuster-democrats_n_2830850.html

I don't normally visit the Huffington Post...or any major news site, for that matter, but now the fingers are being pointed at Dems for not being there. And the comments? Not the usual somewhat solidarity of those who lean left. There's some major division there.