Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
And this is also a true statement. I don't think I can vote for the guy on principle, but as a protest vote, it is appealing.
Justin Amash is an exercise in vanity (he is the anti-Ron Paul)
- Thread starter Matt Collins
- Start date
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Can you please provide links to this? I looked and did see it.
I stand by my assessment. Browsing his recent write-ups found little to suggest he's anything other than another career Beltway swamper and his professional associations are dubious at best.
eleganz
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,262
I should clarify my post by also mentioning that, to be fair, Justin did say in the past that our ideals should be represented during presidential campaigns. Does not change the fact that Justin's decisions are emotionally driven by Trump. Justin would be a lot more effective if he ran in GOP and in 2024, even if it was against Trump Jr., a message that is heard from a republican open mind is better than a non-existent message from the LP campaign.
tebowlives
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,234
Yes you do love to bring attention to yourself by constantly throwing Liberty politicians under the bus. It's sleazy.
tebowlives
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,234
You can't vote for one of the best small government candidates in Congress on principle?????? Small government is our principle and not tabloid garbage.
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,561
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Except that when he advocates UBI and massive welfare programs, he isn't really "small government" any more. I do agree he is better than most, but he has some serious missteps that are very concerning for someone who is supposed to be pro-liberty.
Krugminator2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,568
Cutting a check to people who were forced out of work by government is not a massive welfare program. It is similar to paying someone for taking land from eminent domain. It isn't optional. It is what the government should do in a libertarian society.
And even if he did support UBI, that is not incompatible with small government or libertarianism. It very may well shrink the welfare state and make government smaller.
Here is the reality. Justin Amash is a radical extremist. He is never getting elected to anything on a state level, let alone president. People like you (who I doubt is even a libertarian) bitch and moan about everything. One Justin Amash is worth 10 million of you complainers.
Krugminator2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,568
John McAfee should be in prison for life. He killed one person, probably two. And ran a massive stock fraud scam which was five bucks when I made this thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499627-Re-John-McAfee-MGT&highlight=mcafee Currently at 2.2 cents.
He is criminal. Libertarians don't initiate force, threaten and defraud people.
I dunno. Can left libertarians be considered left wingers? 'Cause that's all who will end up supporting him. Or, those old enough to be nostalgic for the liberty movement circa 2010. Amash appeals to no one outside of those two circles.
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
No, to use the cliche "2 wrongs don't make a right"
Just because the government screwed someone else over, doesn't mean I should be forced to suffer for someone else's mistakes. The government should never have "forced people out of work."
Then you obviously don't understand UBI. It's unconstitutional, it's bad economic policy, and it is philosophically unsound. It is the essence of socialism, redistribution of wealth.
Untrue. He used to be a member of the MI House.
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Matt Collins again.
Krugminator2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,568
Having people beg on Ron Paul Forums for money with 20% unemployment isn't going to be a very good strategy. It is your kind of thinking that libertarianism gets caricatured as and makes it easy for people to automatically dismiss it
The only question is if it is better than the current system. If it is then it should be implemented. Haven't made up my mind on it.
As far as it being bad economic policy, the two greatest economists in history (Friedman and Hayek) as well as Charles Murray supported it so it can't just be dismissed as bad economic policy.
The Michigan House is local like the US House. It isn't a statewide election.
Last edited:
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
Wrong... the question is "is it Constitutional?" followed by "is it economically sound?"
So? Friedman also liked the Fed and invented income tax withholding. Just because an expert says something is a good idea doesn't make it so. On the face income tax witholding is a "better" system but it allowed the income tax to be more palatable. That is a bad idea. The UBI would also make taxation more palatable to the average American too. That's a bad idea. You want taxation to be painful so that people will reject it and politicians that support it.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
tebowlives
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,234
He didn't advocate UBI that I have seen. Where did you see this? What massive welfare programs?
Last edited:
He did, actually, on his Twitter feed. Perhaps not "UBI" in permanent sense but a continuing payment while people have been forced out of work.
On UBI, this is important info:
My 2 cents on UBI, fwiw, is that it IS YOUR MONEY already, so I don't necessarily oppose UBI, depending on how it's implemented. It's not the government's money, it's yours, you already earned it and you are entitled to your share of the Treasury trust fund that you have generated through your labor. To understand what's really going on, you have to understand that the Treasury operates a giant trust account. Read up on trusts! The Treasurer is the trustee and title holder of the trust and the trust property/money. Congress is the executor of the trust. You are the beneficiary of the trust. The money that YOU generate for government funding comes from YOUR LABOR and future potential to labor (and be taxed on), represented by Treasury bonds past and present. When/if Congress passes any statute pushing money out of the Treasury trust to you, the Congress is acting as executor of YOUR MONEY IN THE TRUST and is sending it to you, the beneficiary of the trust. If a UBI is implemented, in reality all it is doing is disbursing YOUR MONEY TO YOU, which the Treasury has held in trust for government use (ostensibly "for your benefit"). In this light, would you rather the government keep spending it on wars and handing it to Raytheon or would you rather the government disperse YOUR money to YOU?
This is important information to consider regarding general topics like federal welfare, UBI, etc.
I am curious if Justin Amash could get a couple sitting "Never Trumpers" endorsement? Mitt Romney comes to mind.
Hell, maybe Romney will change his party affiliation too.
Mitt Romney (L) Utah
Romney would be perfect big L if he would just get out front and give up religion for support of special priv for trans and killing babies .
Krugminator2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,568
Similar threads
