Do you support Rand Paul for president 2024?

[Pauls' Revere]

I would, but realistically I think the GOP would never nominate him. The GOP is not liberty minded enough to do so.

 

[Snowball]

That mention of the 1862 Legal Tender Act was curious. The whole point of that act was to empower the federal government to print, use, and require the use of money that was not backed by gold or silver.
[MENTION=35668]Snowball[/MENTION], are you a modern greenbacker?

I've pretty much ceased having any active, least of all hopeful thoughts or discussions regarding the financial state and ownership of this country we live in. But since you ask, greenbacks would be preferable to what we have now. That doesn't mean it's what I would support if we were starting from scratch. I believe money should have intrinsic value above and beyond the fiat mandate of the government. I do not believe that "cryptocurrencies" fill that requirement, nor to they exist as tangible, real assets of any sort. The most consitutional money is gold and silver. I oppose automatic money supply expansion via debt, wall street speculation and collusion, independent market pricing of the national (or state) currency, and especially any form of purported currency that is owned and issued by anyone other than the sovereign entity.

Therefore, something along the line of United States Notes, backed by gold or silver, in denominations thereof, and restricted in a standardized supply set by law and in harmony with the responsible capabilities of the natural world and its protection would be my choice. I would also re-set the playing table before this happened, so that the present perversely established and astronomically affluent uber-elites would have a significant portion of their current worth not entirely redeemable into the new sound money supply, because if they were allowed full redemption, the needs of the public would suffer in the same manner they already do, which is giving us political bolshevism. So we have to create a much more level ground.

 

[Invisible Man]

I've pretty much ceased having any active, least of all hopeful thoughts or discussions regarding the financial state and ownership of this country we live in. But since you ask, greenbacks would be preferable to what we have now. That doesn't mean it's what I would support if we were starting from scratch. I believe money should have intrinsic value above and beyond the fiat mandate of the government. I do not believe that "cryptocurrencies" fill that requirement, nor to they exist as tangible, real assets of any sort. The most consitutional money is gold and silver. I oppose automatic money supply expansion via debt, wall street speculation and collusion, independent market pricing of the national (or state) currency, and especially any form of purported currency that is owned and issued by anyone other than the sovereign entity.

Therefore, something along the line of United States Notes, backed by gold or silver, in denominations thereof, and restricted in a standardized supply set by law and in harmony with the responsible capabilities of the natural world and its protection would be my choice. I would also re-set the playing table before this happened, so that the present perversely established and astronomically affluent uber-elites would have a significant portion of their current worth not entirely redeemable into the new sound money supply, because if they were allowed full redemption, the needs of the public would suffer in the same manner they already do, which is giving us political bolshevism. So we have to create a much more level ground.

Gold and Silver don't have intrinsic value either. "Value," by definition, is subjective. Nobody has to value Gold or Silver, and different people assign different values to them relative to other things. Just like they do with Bitcoin and Federal Reserve Notes.

The key is that people need to be free to do that according to their own preferences, and not according to a government compelling them to use any currency, whether they would otherwise value it or not, with threats of force.

If the government got out of the way, the market would give Gold and Silver their rightful place as money. And it probably would give cryptocurrencies a place too. That would be up to individual people and their own varying subjective evaluations of these currencies. As it should be.

 

[Snowball]

Gold and Silver don't have intrinsic value either. "Value," by definition, is subjective. Nobody has to value Gold or Silver, and different people assign different values to them relative to other things. Just like they do with Bitcoin and Federal Reserve Notes.

The key is that people need to be free to do that according to their own preferences, and not according to a government compelling them to use any currency, whether they would otherwise value it or not, with threats of force.

If the government got out of the way, the market would give Gold and Silver their rightful place as money. And it probably would give cryptocurrencies a place too. That would be up to individual people and their own varying subjective evaluations of these currencies. As it should be.

Gold and Silver do have intrinsic value for many reasons. Anyway, you'll have a lot of repealing to do, if your dream is what you express.
I don't agree with it or find it in any way beneficial, so I don't see a reason to continue the conversation.

 

[Invisible Man]

Gold and Silver do have intrinsic value for many reasons. Anyway, you'll have a lot of repealing to do, if your dream is what you express.
I don't agree with it or find it in any way beneficial, so I don't see a reason to continue the conversation.

All of those reasons boil down to subjective value judgments made by human beings, meaning they are not intrinsic to the Gold and Silver themselves.

You are right about the level of repealing of laws I would support. But even without repealing those laws, we can also have opinions about more short-term realistic proposals. And sometimes it's not support for repealing a law, but opposition to passing a new one, such as a law that would violate my right to make agreements with other people in which both parties choose to use Bitcoin as money. Just because the government is still doing a lot of bad things, that doesn't mean I have to approve of it doing even more.

 

[Snowball]

All of those reasons boil down to subjective value judgments made by human beings, meaning they are not intrinsic to the Gold and Silver themselves.

You are right about the level of repealing of laws I would support. But even without repealing those laws, we can also have opinions about more short-term realistic proposals. And sometimes it's not support for repealing a law, but opposition to passing a new one, such as a law that would violate my right to make agreements with other people in which both parties choose to use Bitcoin as money. Just because the government is still doing a lot of bad things, that doesn't mean I have to approve of it doing even more.

Gold and Silver have intrinsic value not only from historical use but for their metallic properties.
Use of bitcoin or anything else between parties is not the same as legal tender. Legal tender demands it MUST be accepted. Ron was being ambiguous by saying put bitcoin on tax free status "on par" with the dollar while leaving the legal tender aspect unresolved, so we were left to consider his position against ANY legal tender. Government today does almost everything wrong, and that's not going to change. This is one reason why I don't even support our form of government anymore.

 

[Invisible Man]

Gold and Silver have intrinsic value not only from historical use but for their metallic properties.

They have intrinsic metal properties. But those properties by themselves don't constitute value. Those properties only have value to thinking beings who evaluate them. Those evaluations are subjective, not intrinsic. Different people value them differently according to their own preferences, and they are even free not to value them at all.

Use of bitcoin or anything else between parties is not the same as legal tender. Legal tender demands it MUST be accepted.

There you go again, equivocating on the words. You know full well that Ron Paul never once advocated any policies that would require anyone to accept Bitcoin. And you have produced no quotes where he says anything like that.

 

[StalinLovesCiaFbiFakeMsm]

If he’d run

 

[tebowlives]

I don't think I can forgive Rand for that time a few years ago when he voted a way that I slightly disagreed with.

We know you're a sellout who supports Trump. But thanks for stating the obvious.

 

[fatjohn]

This is why I can't support him anymore:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th...onsors?r=12&s=2&searchResultViewType=expanded

31 out of 49 GOP Senators co-sponsored, including Rand.

Let's mention the ones who did not:
Shelby (AL), Murkowski (AK), Risch (ID), McConnell (KY), Collins (ME), Wicker (MS), Blunt (MO), Fischer (NE), Sasse (NE), Burr (NC), Portman (OH), Toomey (PA), Graham (SC), Rounds (SD), Cornyn (TX), Lee (UT), Romney (UT).

How many of those are genuine objections ? maybe half. maybe. I don't know. All I know is Rand didn't have to co-sponsor, and that's all I need to know.

I agree with this.
There's no hand that forces Rand to be a zionist, but he increasingly alligns himself that way. It's sad and the zionist lobby is the main thing wrong with american politics today.

Anyway, besides that, it's clear that Rand 2024 gets at best a lukewarm greeting.
Here on all places.
So he should not run, its a waste of effort time and money imo.
He should only run when the deficits and debt bomb really explodes.
Then he can lean on his fiscal conservatism to make some headway.
Lets just hope no jew has blackmail on him.

 

[Snowball]

I agree with this.
There's no hand that forces Rand to be a zionist, but he increasingly alligns himself that way. It's sad and the zionist lobby is the main thing wrong with american politics today.

Anyway, besides that, it's clear that Rand 2024 gets at best a lukewarm greeting.
Here on all places.
So he should not run, its a waste of effort time and money imo.
He should only run when the deficits and debt bomb really explodes.
Then he can lean on his fiscal conservatism to make some headway.
Lets just hope no jew has blackmail on him.

While all those attacks were going on, that were intstigated and exacerbated by Israel, this bill above had no reason to exist other than to "bless" the Israeli attacks on Gaza. They didn't EVEN NEED to be "blessed". Such is the level of utter butt-kissing. An opportunity be on record approving of the Israeli strikes cannot be passed up by those beholden to militant Zionism. At the same time, there was a Bill that sought to END the attacks and call for immediate diplomacy. Not a single Republican Senator co-sponsored, and it was held up by McConnell. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-resolution/225/cosponsors?r=2&s=1

Don't forget also, Rand has no problem with Finland and Sweden joining NATO now, because of the Ukraine situation. He voted "present" on that despite other Republicans voting NO. It's a serious indication that Rand equals not Ron.

Regardless, Rand will never win a GOP presidential primary - ever. This is because it's quite possible that Rand IS playing a game to "head fake" the PTB -- they suspect it -- and don't trust him.

 

[acptulsa]

Whether he is his father or not, regardless of Israel this or that, his work concerning the jab sets him apart enough to make him look like presidential material. And as we hear more bad news about those things, he'll look better and better.

That said, in the post-Trump era Massie's straight talk seems to me to show more promise for getting attention despite media blackouts.