compromise
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 5,516
It sure seemed like Rand "woke up" that black Obama supporter guy on Hannity.
Do you support Rand Paul for president?
- Thread starter Rocco
- Start date
jllundqu
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2011
- Messages
- 7,304
I did hear that segment, but even still he said he would most likely vote for hillary... I'm sorry but if you don't see the difference between Rand and Hillary, your opinion doesnt really mean that much (referring to the guy on Hannity)
eduardo89
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2009
- Messages
- 21,295
It's still early. The whole fact that he is considering Rand and praising him is more than any other Republican can say about their impact on black voters.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,040
That is absolutely correct.
"Having a forum website dedicated to getting someone elected to office" (on the one hand) and "someone actually being able to do very much while he or she is in office" (on the other hand) are two entirely different things.
Ron Paul was not actually trying to become president. He was trying to educate people, wake them up, and rally them to action. If by some miracle he had become president, his presidency would have faced the same serious problems I pointed out with respect to Rand in my earlier post. Even moreso, in fact. As president, Ron would have been able to accomplish even less than what Rand will.
And you'll be very disappointed ones if you expect that a libertarian POTUS in 2016 will be able to do a whole lot, even if he's willing to push it. We need more Massies, Amashes, Davises, Brannons, Bradleys, etc - in both state and federal office - before taking POTUS will make any lasting difference.
You can't build a sturdy house by starting on the top floor - and if you try, the Establishment will just huff and puff and blow your house down ...
Last edited:
William Tell
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 12,146
I agree mostly, but keeping us out of WWIII would be a definite plus. We should focus much more on local candidates.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,040
I have no doubt that he would. That is not the point. The point is that the "more" won't be nearly as much as some people seem to imagine it will be - and that it won't last.
It may "feel good" and be wonderfully gratifying to "starry-eyed dreamers" - but until there is sufficient anti-Establishment support from below, a Paul in the Senate will be worth more than a Paul in the Oval Office.
*shrug* And as I said, you'll be a disappointed one if you think that a 2016 Rand Paul POTUSship will be anything but a blip.
Neither sufficient impetus nor the necessary foundations for anything else are there yet.
I don't really think that WW3 is in the cards. The assholes in Washington are full of bluff & bluster - but they don't really have the balls to throw down on anyone but Afghani goatherds and the like. But supposing that they did have the 'nads and Rand was able to rein them in, then that would be about the only real, long-term plus I could see coming out of a Paul POTUSship at this stage.
There might very well be a number of short-term plusses - but they would be minor, ephemeral and/or unsustainable without the needed support (from sufficiently influential blocs in Congress and elsewhere). And every negative thing that happens - no matter how small or large and no matter who or what is really at fault - will be relentlessly blamed on Rand Paul and "libertarian" policies. Better to build numbers and influence elsewhere until we have a sufficient base from which a libertarian POTUS can weather such slings and arrows - rather than push the van so far ahead that it can be cut off and isolated, surrounded and destroyed.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,040
It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with "purism" or "gradualism" or any such thing. It has everything to do with not being able to preserve (let alone extend) whatever accomplishments a "libertarian" POTUS might be able to achieve at present.
Until the Liberty Movement can build sufficient numbers and influence to defend its gains, having someone "at the top" is not going be a "huge step" - it is just going to be a temporary and (ultimately) disappointing blip. Without the necessary foundations, a "liberty" POTUS like Rand is just NOT going to be able to implement a strongly or significantly libertarian agenda - and without those foundations, whatever he *is* able to achieve won't be able to last. I don't like it, and I very much wish it were otherwise - but it is what it is. Winning POTUS should be the LAST thing on our checklist - NOT the first.
Last edited:
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
Occam's Banana's warnings are wise. Expectations should be low. Victory is probably a long way off.
However, I always like to think about the contrary point of view as well. If there were a truly libertarian President elected, and that man had integrity and gumption, I think a lot could be accomplished. For one thing, the election of such a person would signal a sea-change in American opinion. Even if not a single new member of Congress were elected, a support base for the libertarian ideology in Congress almost certainly would arise, because congressmen are just not that principled. They're not that ideological, for the most part. If Mr. Libertarian just got elected, guess what? They are going to be on board, to an extent. They are constantly licking their finger and holding it to the wind.
Also, the President of the United States has a huge pulpit from which to preach and a enormously heavy mantle of credibility. He cannot just be ignored.
Here is what a libertarian President could do:
By Harry Browne
I’d like to tell you what actions I’d take if I’d been elected president.
After my inaugural day, I’d probably spend little more than an hour a day in the Oval Office, because a busy president is a dangerous president. But for the very first day, I’d have an extremely long agenda.
On that first day in office, by executive order I would:
Following the issuance of the pardons:
And then I would break for lunch.
There’s More…
After lunch, I would begin the process of removing from the Federal Register the thousands and thousands of regulations and executive orders inserted there by previous presidents. In most cases these regulations give federal employees powers for which there is no constitutional authority.
I would call Office Depot and order a carload of pens — to use to veto congressional bills that violate the Constitution or that spend more money than necessary for the constitutional functions of government.
I would send to Congress a budget that immediately cuts federal spending in half — on its way to reducing the government to no larger than its constitutional size.
Congress would undoubtedly pass a larger budget and expect me to sign it. I wouldn’t. I’d veto it.
Would Congress override my veto?
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn’t.
Even if Congress succeeded in passing bills over my veto, the battle finally would be joined. We finally would have something we haven’t had in my lifetime — a president standing up to Congress.
At long last, there would be two sides arguing in Washington — one to increase government and one to cut it sharply — instead of the current trivial debate over whether government should grow 5 percent a year or “only” 3 percent.
Just Say No
No president in the past several decades has had the will, the determination, the courage to “just say no” to Congress.
No president in the past several decades has even tried to reduce the size of government. Any president who wanted to do so could have managed it — even in the face of a hostile Congress.
No president since the 1950s has proposed a single budget that would reduce the size of the federal government. And when Congress has come back with even larger budgets, no president has vetoed them.
Every president who claimed to be against big government has had that veto at his disposal, but none thought enough of your freedom to use it.
As president, I would — for the first time — use that office on your behalf. I would say no to Congress. Whatever new program it wanted to spend money on, I would veto. Whatever new tax it wanted to impose, I would veto. Whatever new intrusion it wanted to make in your life, I would veto.
No deals. No excuses. No apologies. No regrets.
But I would do more than just defend what little freedom you have left today. I would go on the offensive. I wouldn’t rest until the income tax was repealed, the federal government was so small you wouldn’t worry about who was elected president, and you had control over your own money, your own freedom, your own life.
And when we achieved this, we’d have a celebration. Do you remember the German youths who tore down the Berlin Wall and sold pieces of it to us?
Well, we would tear down the IRS building and sell the pieces — and use the proceeds to help IRS agents find honest work.
Do you think any of my plans would appeal to George W. Bush or Al Gore?
Not likely, is it?
So why are we worrying over which one of them will win the current legal mud-wrestling?
-- http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/517/
However, I always like to think about the contrary point of view as well. If there were a truly libertarian President elected, and that man had integrity and gumption, I think a lot could be accomplished. For one thing, the election of such a person would signal a sea-change in American opinion. Even if not a single new member of Congress were elected, a support base for the libertarian ideology in Congress almost certainly would arise, because congressmen are just not that principled. They're not that ideological, for the most part. If Mr. Libertarian just got elected, guess what? They are going to be on board, to an extent. They are constantly licking their finger and holding it to the wind.
Also, the President of the United States has a huge pulpit from which to preach and a enormously heavy mantle of credibility. He cannot just be ignored.
Here is what a libertarian President could do:
What Could a Libertarian President Do?
By Harry Browne
I’d like to tell you what actions I’d take if I’d been elected president.
After my inaugural day, I’d probably spend little more than an hour a day in the Oval Office, because a busy president is a dangerous president. But for the very first day, I’d have an extremely long agenda.
On that first day in office, by executive order I would:
- Pardon everyone who had been convicted on a federal, non-violent drug charge, order their immediate release, reunite them with their families, and restore all their civil rights. (Anyone convicted of using violence against someone else in a drug case would not qualify as “non-violent.”)
- Pardon everyone who had been convicted on any federal gun-control charge, tax-evasion charge, or any other victimless crime, order their immediate release, and restore all their civil rights.
Following the issuance of the pardons:
- I would announce a policy to penalize, dismiss, or even prosecute any federal employee who violated the Bill of Rights by treating you as guilty until proven innocent, by searching or seizing your property without due process of law, by treating you as a servant, or in any other way violating your rights as a sovereign American citizen.
- I would immediately order that no federal asset forfeiture could occur unless the property’s owner had been convicted by full due process. And I would initiate steps to make restitution to anyone whose property had been impounded, frozen, or seized by the federal government without a legal conviction. (Over 80 percent of such seizures occur when no one has even been charged with a crime.)
- As commander in chief of the Armed Forces, I would immediately remove all American troops from foreign soil. Europe and Asia can pay for their own defense, and they can risk their own lives in their eternal squabbles. This would save billions of dollars a year in taxes, but — more important — it would make sure your sons and daughters never fight or die in someone else’s war.
- I would order everyone in the executive branch to stop harassing smokers, tobacco companies, successful computer companies, gun owners, gun manufacturers, alternative medicine suppliers, religious groups (whether respected or labeled as “cults”), investment companies, health-care providers, businessmen, or anyone else who’s conducting his affairs peaceably.
- I would end federal affirmative action, federal quotas, set-asides, preferential treatments, and other discriminatory practices of the federal government. Any previous president could have done this with a stroke of the pen. Do you wonder why none of them did?
And then I would break for lunch.
There’s More…
After lunch, I would begin the process of removing from the Federal Register the thousands and thousands of regulations and executive orders inserted there by previous presidents. In most cases these regulations give federal employees powers for which there is no constitutional authority.
I would call Office Depot and order a carload of pens — to use to veto congressional bills that violate the Constitution or that spend more money than necessary for the constitutional functions of government.
I would send to Congress a budget that immediately cuts federal spending in half — on its way to reducing the government to no larger than its constitutional size.
Congress would undoubtedly pass a larger budget and expect me to sign it. I wouldn’t. I’d veto it.
Would Congress override my veto?
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn’t.
Even if Congress succeeded in passing bills over my veto, the battle finally would be joined. We finally would have something we haven’t had in my lifetime — a president standing up to Congress.
At long last, there would be two sides arguing in Washington — one to increase government and one to cut it sharply — instead of the current trivial debate over whether government should grow 5 percent a year or “only” 3 percent.
Just Say No
No president in the past several decades has had the will, the determination, the courage to “just say no” to Congress.
No president in the past several decades has even tried to reduce the size of government. Any president who wanted to do so could have managed it — even in the face of a hostile Congress.
No president since the 1950s has proposed a single budget that would reduce the size of the federal government. And when Congress has come back with even larger budgets, no president has vetoed them.
Every president who claimed to be against big government has had that veto at his disposal, but none thought enough of your freedom to use it.
As president, I would — for the first time — use that office on your behalf. I would say no to Congress. Whatever new program it wanted to spend money on, I would veto. Whatever new tax it wanted to impose, I would veto. Whatever new intrusion it wanted to make in your life, I would veto.
No deals. No excuses. No apologies. No regrets.
But I would do more than just defend what little freedom you have left today. I would go on the offensive. I wouldn’t rest until the income tax was repealed, the federal government was so small you wouldn’t worry about who was elected president, and you had control over your own money, your own freedom, your own life.
And when we achieved this, we’d have a celebration. Do you remember the German youths who tore down the Berlin Wall and sold pieces of it to us?
Well, we would tear down the IRS building and sell the pieces — and use the proceeds to help IRS agents find honest work.
Do you think any of my plans would appeal to George W. Bush or Al Gore?
Not likely, is it?
So why are we worrying over which one of them will win the current legal mud-wrestling?
-- http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/517/
Similar threads
