Is Rand our man or not?

[LibertyEagle]

I'd define it as accepting the NAP. Yeah, that's a small number, but so what?

There is no reason to compromise what you personally believe in. But, I'm sure you realize that we aren't going to be able to convince the vast majority of people to go from where we are today to the NAP overnight, right?

I do agree with trying to extend the tent to those who usually support liberty though, as long as we can do so without compromising what we believe in. In my mind there's room for any small government people who oppose warmongering, but I wouldn't necessarily consider all of those people to be "for liberty" if they still support some aggression.

Pretty nice of you, since you have just defined Ron Paul there.

 

[klamath]

"Nope. All you had to do was your own polling of people in your area...not friends or family as people tent to hang with those that they agree with. Most people did NOT vote for RP. "

Then how did he get elected so many times in a row? Given that we have video proof that cheating happened all over the place I don't think its a stretch.

Also I didn't say he could have won LAST TIME. Although minus the cheating theres no telling how much better we could have done.

I'm saying if we had a chance for a redo in 2016 with same candidates. There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?

(yes I know a redo won't happen)

They were voting for him as a congressmen. He did stuff for his district which included bringing home earmarks and taking care of veterans. Voting for him as CIC is an entirely different thing.
If Ron was going to win any states he would have done it last election. Running again would see his numbers plunge. RP did his best peak in 2012. Running again would destroy his legasy because he would become a joke.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Ron said he couldn't do much of anything and you supported him, as I recall.

I disagree though that Ron "couldn't do much of anything."

Are you kidding? Look at all the people he woke up....and so many young people. He educated so many about economics, foreign policy, basic libertarian principles, the sanctity of life as it pertains to real liberty. And he's STILL educating people! He's doing the part that is most important, in my opinion. As my sig line says, without education, any and all gains will be only temporary.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You recall correctly. Apples and oranges. If you look back over the posts that led us here, you will see that this was not about who I will or won't support; it started as a comment on whether the liberty movement is really expanding, or (my opinion) issues are watered down to make it appear to be expanding.

Actually, you did make some comments about Rand in regards to this issue and that is why we went through this series of questions. I wish you'd look back over them, because I don't think you are being fair on this with regard to him.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I disagree though that Ron "couldn't do much of anything."

Those were his words, Cajun; not mine.

Are you kidding? Look at all the people he woke up....and so many young people. He educated so many about economics, foreign policy, basic libertarian principles, the sanctity of life as it pertains to real liberty. And he's STILL educating people! He's doing the part that is most important, in my opinion. As my sig line says, without education, any and all gains will be only temporary.

Again... this was all talking. Which is why I asked you what was most important to you; talking or doing?

 

[klamath]

Running and winning is the single greatest educational moment that can be done. Nothing changes peoples minds faster. As a example, 5 years ago California the most liberal, most gay state voted to ban same sex marriage. When Obama pushed the agenda a few year later the entire resistance to SSM is falling nationwide.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Those were his words, Cajun; not mine.



Again... this was all talking. Which is why I asked you what was most important to you; talking or doing?

I know they weren't your words, but I still disagree.

i also already answered about talking vs. doing....both are important.

LE, I don't think we're as far apart on this one as you're trying to make it seem.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Actually, you did make some comments about Rand in regards to this issue and that is why we went through this series of questions. I wish you'd look back over them, because I don't think you are being fair on this with regard to him.

*sigh* LE, I'm voting for Rand; he still has my support. He doesn't have my 100% agreement with all of his rhetoric, however, and his most ardent supporters are a bit annoying with their hypersensitivity to any criticism. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Dogsoldier]

"RP did his best peak in 2012. Running again would destroy his legasy because he would become a joke. "

Agree to disagree.

" There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?"

?? Couldn't or wouldn't?.....I know I could and it wouldn't take much effort either. RP name grew big time here. I'd start with family....then friends......friends of friends=quadrupled easy. That's just counting people I know....I can only cover my area though.

That's why I asked the question-Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?



Too bad a redo isn't possible.

 

[dinosaur]

I really don't understand how anyone with half a brain could disagree with Rand on those things.

FF - you're young, right? You weren't there for all the media manipulation. Ron Paul reached people who already had a healthy distrust of the current system, hence the young and independent thinkers. But there are plenty of people out there who agree with us in principle, but got scared off when the media was able to make Ron look "liberal." Smart people can be victims of group think. Bush got a lot of people to go along with things like the patriot act and no child left behind; and these were the same people who valued small government. It's complicated, but it has a lot to do with the bogeymen that the media set up. Back when conservatives started distrusting the network media, new alternative talk radio media sprang up. This new media appeared to champion small government and individual freedom, then slowly and subtly started to set up a new left-right divide. The younger generation is more cynical and distrusting for good reason, but the older generation is stuck in a more innocent time in some respects. They trust more, and therefore you have to be careful about the approach.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There is no reason to compromise what you personally believe in. But, I'm sure you realize that we aren't going to be able to convince the vast majority of people to go from where we are today to the NAP overnight, right?

Of course not. Heck, I'd argue you aren't 100% convinced, and you're a heck of a lot closer than the average person.

That's still what I believe would qualify though. Rejecting ALL aggression. If you (general sense) support aggression of any type, you aren't really for liberty. You might be for liberty on certain, even most, issues, but I wouldn't consider you a libertarian in the absolute sense.

Pretty nice of you, since you have just defined Ron Paul there.

I'm not really sure why you are rolling your eyes.

Imagine a hypothetical person, Person B. He's with the liberty movement on a lot of issues, is opposed to war, opposed to high taxes, etc. But he supports government roads, local public schools, and laws against drugs.

Could I work with this person? Yeah, probably. Does he really support liberty? No, at least not IMO.

Now, WRT Ron, I don't know if he's a full fledged ancap or not, but if not, he's pretty darn close. I've never heard him say anything to the effect of "Well, obviously we need taxes for this reason" or "obviously we can't let people (insert victimless crime here.)" I'm not saying I agree with him on every last position he takes, but its pretty darn close.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I know they weren't your words, but I still disagree.

i also already answered about talking vs. doing....both are important.

LE, I don't think we're as far apart on this one as you're trying to make it seem.

I think Ron has a high view of his son, and a low view of himself. I think that's why he supports his son 99% and comes across as being so humble when he knows he right. I don't think we can take Ron's words about himself and assume that they are absolutely true.

There's quite a darn bit Ron could do as chief executive, but how much he would do I'm genuinely not sure. I'm not sure, for instance, whether he'd start pardoning people who kill government agents who try to take away their freedom, and flat out, no reservations stop enforcing laws that were unlibertarian and unconstitutional. Because, he could do those things, but he might not feel comfortable moving that quickly, and even if he did, he'd likely be impeached and thrown out.

 

[klamath]

"RP did his best peak in 2012. Running again would destroy his legasy because he would become a joke. "

Agree to disagree.

" There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?"

?? Couldn't or wouldn't?.....I know I could and it wouldn't take much effort either. RP name grew big time here. I'd start with family....then friends......friends of friends=quadrupled easy. That's just counting people I know....I can only cover my area though.

That's why I asked the question-Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?



Too bad a redo isn't possible.

No I don't think I could get anymore votes. In fact the numbers he had before would be down. The only people left that would vote for him is the perpetual voters that want to make a statement by voting for someone they know won't win, like mickey mouse etc. Anybody that seriously wants to take part in electing a president will not vote for Ron again.

 

[fr33]

" There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?"

?? Couldn't or wouldn't?.....I know I could and it wouldn't take much effort either. RP name grew big time here. I'd start with family....then friends......friends of friends=quadrupled easy. That's just counting people I know....I can only cover my area though.

That's why I asked the question-Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?

No, I don't think we could.

 

[Dogsoldier]

"No, I don't think we could. "

"No I don't think I could get anymore votes."

We must live in completely different areas...LOL...I'm in Missouri. At our local county caucus there was maybe 100 people for the whole county. The vast majority of people don't even know what the caucus is for. A couple counties next to ours went overwhelmingly for RP.

 

[Christian Liberty]

No I don't think I could get anymore votes. In fact the numbers he had before would be down. The only people left that would vote for him is the perpetual voters that want to make a statement by voting for someone they know won't win, like mickey mouse etc. Anybody that seriously wants to take part in electing a president will not vote for Ron again.

The more I think about this, the more I really do not wish to take part in electing a president. I'll vote for Rand if he gets to the general, but really, we need congressmen and senators more than we do the President. The President is a lot of power in one man, and thus easily corrupted. We need to change the system, not one man.

 

[klamath]

"No, I don't think we could. "

"No I don't think I could get anymore votes."

We must live in completely different areas...LOL...I'm in Missouri. At our local county caucus there was maybe 100 people for the whole county. The vast majority of people don't even know what the caucus is for. A couple counties next to ours went overwhelmingly for RP.

If RP was going to win he would have won Iowa. He had it in the bag on DEC 21 2012 then proved very poor at handling a hostile media. RP lost Iowa because he allowed the media to get under his skin on the newsletters deal and appeared to walk out of an interview asking about it. To swing voters that says guilt. He was on his way down in the polls a week before the santorum surge was hyped by the news.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Of course not. Heck, I'd argue you aren't 100% convinced, and you're a heck of a lot closer than the average person.

I'm not a pacifist. Some people confuse the two issues. I'm not sure if you are one of those or not..

That's still what I believe would qualify though. Rejecting ALL aggression. If you (general sense) support aggression of any type, you aren't really for liberty. You might be for liberty on certain, even most, issues, but I wouldn't consider you a libertarian in the absolute sense.

Again, I'm not a pacifist. I damn well believe in defense and if someone attacks us, I believe in knocking the snot out of them.

You know what I call someone who would just sit there and not do anything if an attack was imminent or was occurring? A pussy. Libertarian has nothing to do with it.

I'm not really sure why you are rolling your eyes.

Because it was mighty fine of you to permit Ron to be in his own movement..

Imagine a hypothetical person, Person B. He's with the liberty movement on a lot of issues, is opposed to war, opposed to high taxes, etc. But he supports government roads, local public schools, and laws against drugs.

Could I work with this person? Yeah, probably.

Mighty white of you. Look, your nirvana isn't going to come overnight. Nor, are you going to get everyone on-board with everything you believe at first, if ever.

Does he really support liberty? No, at least not IMO.

So, if someone believes in a few minimal roads being put in by their local government at the behest of their voters, in your eyes would make them against liberty? Sorry, but that deserves an

Now, WRT Ron, I don't know if he's a full fledged ancap or not, but if not, he's pretty darn close.

I do. I am really sure. If you don't believe me, ask his best friend, Lew Rockwell.

I've never heard him say anything to the effect of "Well, obviously we need taxes for this reason" or "obviously we can't let people (insert victimless crime here.)" I'm not saying I agree with him on every last position he takes, but its pretty darn close.

 

[klamath]

The more I think about this, the more I really do not wish to take part in electing a president. I'll vote for Rand if he gets to the general, but really, we need congressmen and senators more than we do the President. The President is a lot of power in one man, and thus easily corrupted. We need to change the system, not one man.

As I pointed out earlier the absolute best way to change people minds is to elect a president. but that is fine you don't have to take part. Do what ever you want and that right there proves we still have a fairly free system. When someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to vote for Rand, let me know.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not a pacifist. Some people confuse the two issues. I'm not sure if you are one of those or not..


Again, I'm not a pacifist. I damn well believe in defense and if someone attacks us, I believe in knocking the snot out of them.

You know what I call someone who would just sit there and not do anything if an attack was imminent or was occurring? A pussy. Libertarian has nothing to do with it.

I didn't say anything about defense. To my understanding of what you believe, you still believe in some level of taxation, and you don't believe local governments are inherently wrong to pass laws against victimless vices such as prostitution. If I'm wrong on either of these points, please correct me.

I'm not sure where you got anything whatsoever about being opposed to defense or a pacifist from my post. I'm not a pacifist, BTW.

Because it was mighty fine of you to permit Ron to be in his own movement..

I doubt Ron would claim ownership of the movement, but that aside, you asked a question and I gave you my opinion. Then you pretend to be offended because we answered you. This is frankly rude.


Mighty white of you. Look, your nirvana isn't going to come overnight. Nor, are you going to get everyone on-board with everything you believe at first, if ever.

So, if someone believes in a few minimal roads being put in by their local government at the behest of their voters, in your eyes would make them against liberty? Sorry, but that deserves an

Yes, it does, at least on that one issue. You use euphemisms to hide the true evil of what's being proposed, but what is really being proposed when "public roads" are being proposed is that money will be taken from taxpayers at gunpoint in order for the government to build roads. Yes, that is anti-liberty. Of course, the individual proposing it may not fully understand what he proposes, but its still anti-liberty.

Its funny, because I got frustrated with Eric Peters when he said something to this effect less than a year ago. I've gotten a lot more radical in a fairly short time.

I do. I am really sure. If you don't believe me, ask his best friend, Lew Rockwell.

I'll ask him.

As I pointed out earlier the absolute best way to change people minds is to elect a president. but that is fine you don't have to take part. Do what ever you want and that right there proves we still have a fairly free system. When someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to vote for Rand, let me know.

I suspect that electing a President could, however, tie half-hearted ideas with the "liberty movement" if the liberty-movement president doesn't stick by his convictions.

I don't see how not having to vote for Rand (For the record, I intend to vote for Rand) makes us free...