An open letter from Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark to Sen. Rand Paul

The LP better not run a candidate if Rand ends up winning the primary...
 
The Libertarian Party is the Anti-war party. I think this letter from Mr. Sarwark is excellent.


Does Rand REALLY want a new war? That's really hard to believe, so I don't understand his recent rhetoric.
 
Feeding the Abscess said:
They were supporting Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart.
Click to expand...

You know, I'm sure I agree a lot with Mary Ruwart, but I could just see the MSM giving her attention as "the child porn candidate". Its probably a good thing that she didn't become relevant in national politics.
idiom said:
It only holds your feet to the fire if it has clout. Rand could have his platform be "The complete dissolution of the Federal Government of the United States" and the LP would still run against him.

Where is the upside? What will the LP deliver if Rand panders to them?
Click to expand...

For me this isn't about the LP. Maybe they would still run against him. I just agree with the content of the letter.
 
I don't see a scenario where Rand Paul would become the LP candidate. If he's bypassed in 2016, he's still a young man and would most likely try again. I don't think he'd burn bridges with the GOP.

We have certainly discussed it on our blog, and would be happy to have new people come to our site. If you comment and it's your first time, the comment will be held until an administrator okays it, but then there shouldn't be any problems commenting.

http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...rwark-open-letter-to-rand-paul-regarding-war/

http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...er-sen-rand-paul-no-friend-of-the-opposition/

http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...nd-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too/
 
please don't bring up 2008 and the lp anymore..... we'd all like to forget Barr. it's like the proverbial two-bagger - a few of the leaders of the party made a huge mistake.

the lp is spot on to oppose war and it is one reason why I call myself a libertarian.

edit: I wrote-in Ron Paul in 2008
 
jillpyeatt said:
Here's another one:

http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...rs-new-book-urges-liberals-to-back-rand-paul/
Click to expand...

Some assorted comments from the hardcore libertarians at your site:

"I have the utmost respect for Ralph Nader and can’t wait to read his new book. I was proud to vote for him in 2008. That said, fuck Rand Paul. No chance in Hell I vote for that phony."

"For someone who also respects RalphNader, and worked for his presidential campaign in ’96 and ’00, Mr. Nader is really reaching at straws."



 
Galileo Galilei said:
This letter is dumb. Besides missing the entire point on political strategy and following the Constitution, Rand's proposal would limit ground troops to protect the US embassy and require reauthorization in one year.
Click to expand...


Ground troops should never be used and CAN NEVER BE used to protect a diplomatic mission. The moment you hold ground to protect a diplomatic mission, it is no longer a diplomatic mission: their presence becomes a colonial court; the base of an occupying force.

The facility in Baghdad is NOT and never has been a "US embassy"; it is the Iraqi Embassy FOR the United States:

THEIR embassy for OUR diplomatic mission.

Their place where our people are honored and welcomed.

If we put boots in Iraq it should be to assist in evacuating our mission and securing our documents and belongings until the Iraqi government can provide a secure location for our mission to reside with dignity.

Diplomats are, at all times, OBLIGED TO RETREAT.
 
Last edited:
Freedom promotes Peace, and Peace helps Freedom grow:
Did his father do a good job teaching Rand?
 
I don't mind authorizing ground troops to defend the embassy. As long as they can all physically cram inside the embassy with no authorization to step outside. :)
 
It's a third-party site. People comment who are from other parties besides the LP.

Most of the articles seem to be about the Libertarian Party, which isn't inappropriate considering we are the largest party besides the duopoly.
 
jillpyeatt said:
It's a third-party site. People comment who are from other parties besides the LP.

Most of the articles seem to be about the Libertarian Party, which isn't inappropriate considering we are the largest party besides the duopoly.
Click to expand...

They won't admit it but establishment parties are scared to death of Independents. Make no mistake about that. Establishment parties like to count seats and trade power back and forth. Independents (who greatly outnumber establishment party voters) tend to count the issues. And therein lies the difference between them. ;)


 
Last edited:
presence said:
Ground troops should never be used and CAN NEVER BE used to protect a diplomatic mission. The moment you hold ground to protect a diplomatic mission, it is no longer a diplomatic mission: their presence becomes a colonial court; the base of an occupying force.

The facility in Baghdad is NOT and never has been a "US embassy"; it is the Iraqi Embassy FOR the United States:

THEIR embassy for OUR diplomatic mission.

Their place where our people are honored and welcomed.

If we put boots in Iraq it should be to assist in evacuating our mission and securing our documents and belongings until the Iraqi government can provide a secure location for our mission to reside with dignity.

Diplomats are, at all times, OBLIGED TO RETREAT.
Click to expand...

So an embassy that has 3 military guards is not an embassy? Right.
 
I don't have a problem with that letter. Declared or undeclared; another war on Muslim extremists will only accomplish more destabilization and make the US less safe. Libertarians (and even libertarian-republicans like Rand)should talk more about defense and less about wars of aggression. ISIS hasn't attacked the US and poses no real threat except for small isolated terrorist acts which aren't even likely to happen.
 
fr33 said:
I don't have a problem with that letter. Declared or undeclared; another war on Muslim extremists will only accomplish more destabilization and make the US less safe. Libertarians (and even libertarian-republicans like Rand)should talk more about defense and less about wars of aggression. ISIS hasn't attacked the US and poses no real threat except for small isolated terrorist acts which aren't even likely to happen.
Click to expand...

There's already a war, the US is bombing them. Bombing is an act of war.
 
Crashland said:
I don't mind authorizing ground troops to defend the embassy. As long as they can all physically cram inside the embassy with no authorization to step outside. :)
Click to expand...

Well that shouldn't be a problem. I hear it's the size of the Vatican. :rolleyes:
 
The libertarian party demonizing Rand should help him in the republican primaries.

When asked "if you lose the primaries, will you run as a libertarian like your dad" he has a great comeback: "of course not, they keep writing open letters on how Im not libertarian enough"
 
Galileo Galilei said:
So an embassy that has 3 military guards is not an embassy? Right.
Click to expand...

Their job is to destroy documents, and prevent capture of personnel; not hold ground.

The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.
Click to expand...

http://www.mcesg.marines.mil/

The moment a military guard threatens a target outside of the "the facility" it is no longer a conveyed-and-granted-in-trust-by-the-host embassy; at that moment it becomes an occupied-by-colonial-power base.
 
Last edited:
randomname said:
The libertarian party demonizing Rand should help him in the republican primaries.

When asked "if you lose the primaries, will you run as a libertarian like your dad" he has a great comeback: "of course not, they keep writing open letters on how Im not libertarian enough"
Click to expand...
^^^^^^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top