Rand Paul backs Teri Lynn Land

[menciusmoldbug]

And that's how I know you're trolling

He isn't trolling, he simply happens to hold different values than you do.

Ron Wyden took on the NSA and was the one to caused Clapper to perjure himself. Russ Feingold was alright. Kucinich - good on civil liberties. I'd take any of those in a heartbeat over most republicans in office.

Next, I'm going to name some SOCIALISTS that I'd rather have in office than John McCain: Noam Chomsky, Lewis Black, George Orwell, Glenn Greenwald

Please read the following: http://www.distributedrepublic.net/...hism-fiscal-domestic-as-civil-rights-foreign/

What would your response be to this post?

 

[menciusmoldbug]

The media is ignoring her now, but they'll shred her in the general. She's a weak candidate. It's a shame this is the best the GOP could come up with.

What odds would you be willing to lay on her losing, and how much would you be willing to bet on the outcome?

It's a shame InTrade is down. =(

 

[Vanguard101]

Opposed reopening government, due to ObamaCare.
Opposed deal to re-open federal government.
Federal shutdown was opportunity to address spending.

America is truly exceptional; but don't always intervene
Focus on rebuilding US first, then national security abroad.


No military intervention in Syria.

Super PACs are committed to Michigan
Allow "dark money" secret campaign donations for issue ads

Along with these liberty stances, she is pro-life, supports privatized social security, opposes magazine limits, supports making the tax code "simple, fair, and less bureaucratic" and supports an All-of-the-above energy policy, including Keystone.

Terri Lynn Land is a Moderate Libertarian Conservative.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Terri_Lynn_Land.htm

Did you even look up her stances on issues? *crickets*

That spectrum is suspect. It says Amash is as Libertarian as her.

http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Justin_Amash.htm

 

[Cap]

I'm from Michigan and will simply state that Land is horrendous. Angela is correct, she is no friend to liberty or our movement.

 

[angelatc]

What odds would you be willing to lay on her losing, and how much would you be willing to bet on the outcome?

It's a shame InTrade is down. =(

I don't see any reason to gamble, but I think she'll get between 40% and 45% at the polls. There's no reason for a liberal state like Michigan to settle for a liberal Republican when they can have a perfectly good Democrat.

 

[angelatc]

I'm glad you asked - I can, actually! Watch:

http://terrilynnland.com/real-health-care-reform/

http://terrilynnland.com/stronger-michigan-manufacturing/



Who needs a dog whistle? She can be counted on to vote for the repeal of Obamacare if (R)s take the Senate and Rand wins the presidency in 2016, and she won't be a rubber stamp for free trade agreements (if you wanted to call her endorsement of "fair trade" a "dog whistle," I suppose that'd be fair).

It's a bit of a stretch to say she can be counted on to repeal Obamacare when she herself stated that was not an option for her. ( For those of you who are playing at home, her initial response to Obamacare was that it was too late to repeal it, and that we needed to go back and fix it. When the GOP thrashed her, she retracted it. But she also clearly said that while she originally supported defunding it, we were past that now.)

And I while I do support HSA's, I don't support her position on pre-existing conditions or insurance across state lines. Again, very telling that you do. That's the liberal influence showing.

And you expect me to believe that privatizing Social Security will ever come to the table again? GWB coudn't get that through Congress when we had all 3 houses and the economy was going gangbusters. No way will the left wing of the party ever get behind that....the Democrats will yell and they will roll over again, like the good little lap dogs they are. Never afraid to bark at the other dogs in their own pack, but peeing all over themselves when the other pack as much as whines.

Um. What? Why would you think that? Would you prefer that McConnell lose his seat to Grimes?

Because we spend so much time and money trying to get the powerful entrenched squishy Republicans out of office that it seems to me to be a no-brainer not to elect more of them.

That's really the only reason you ought to need. That you're asking for more demonstrates the wisdom of that old Churchill chestnut:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Never fear, sweetheart - there'll come a day when you won't need to worry your pretty little head about who to vote for anymore.

So now you're going to resort to simply insulting me and my intelligence while using a sexist slur because I'm not going to vote for a Rockefeller Republican.

To the rest of the forum, this is a taste of what I'm talking about. I won't post details in a public forum, but I had a guy from the Rogers wing of the party get so nasty with me that I literally had to talk my husband out of going over to his house and calling him out. And that was not in a discussion of electoral politics - it was my disagreeing with a proposal to hand the school systems over to the state. Liberals in both parties are nasty bullies on every single level, and if you guys were waiting for an even bigger tell, there it is.) This is the Michigan GOP - nastier to their own than they are the Democrats.

Again, I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I'm not going to vote for a liberal Republican. Not now, not ever. Neither is my husband, and neither is my son, and neither is his girlfriend, and neither are her parents and..... If you're afraid that we might cost you the election, you probably should have considered that before you decided put this particular dog in the race.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

I don't see any reason to gamble

I do!

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/the_bettors_oat.html

The Bettor's Oath
Blathering talk surrounds us, but I will take no part in it. My word is my bet; I will always put my money where my mouth is. When challenged, I will bet on my words, refine them, or recant. When no one is present to challenge me, I will weigh my words and thoughts as if my fellow oath-takers were listening.


I will make both conditional and unconditional bets, and assign probabilities whenever asked. I will claim no false certainty; unless I will stake my life on my belief, I am not truly certain - and will admit it.


When I lose a bet, I will admit defeat, pay promptly, and hold my tongue - never protesting that I was "really right." If I have caveats or reservations, I will declare them when I make the bet - not after I lose it.


When I win a bet, I will not shame my opponent, for a betting loser has far more honor than the mass of men who live by loose and idle talk. I pledge my mind and words to the bettor's oath, for this day and all the days to come...


Unless something in this oath turns out to be wrong, an eventuality to which I assign a 3% probability.

but I think she'll get between 40% and 45% at the polls.

What probability do you assign to this outcome, and how much would you be willing to bet on it?

There's no reason for a liberal state like Michigan to settle for a liberal Republican when they can have a perfectly good Democrat.

Of course there is - you're ignoring the Median Voter Theorem. The median voter in Michigan may well be more ideologically similar to a liberal Republican than they are to a liberal Democrat. In fact they very likely are - that's why Land is polling so competitively with Peters despite the strong Democratic lean of Michigan voters. (Edit: According to RCP, she's ahead by 0.6 percentage points in their rolling average of the polls. See here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/mi/michigan_senate_land_vs_peters-3820.html).

I expect this to be an EXTREMELY close race. Having Land win it rather than Peters would have enormous positive repercussions, imo. You're free to disagree with this judgment, but I think you'd be making a mistake to do so, and the reasons you've provided thus far for refusing to lend her a vote strike me as unpersuasive and immature.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

It's a bit of a stretch to say she can be counted on to repeal Obamacare when she herself stated that was not an option for her. ( For those of you who are playing at home, her initial response to Obamacare was that it was too late to repeal it, and that we needed to go back and fix it. When the GOP thrashed her, she retracted it. But she also clearly said that while she originally supported defunding it, we were past that now.)

I am glad she had the good sense to perform this feat of political jiu-jitsu. Michigan voters are far more likely than the average American to view repealing Obamacare as "extremist" and associate those views with Republicans they dislike, such as Ted Cruz. And I don't doubt that, if elected, Land will refuse to stand with the more conservative Senators in their efforts to defeat Obamacare while Obama is still in office. This makes her candidacy less exciting and less useful than, for example, Greg Brannon's. And I would certainly advise you to donate more time and money to Brannon than to Land.

However, Land's lack of principles and ideological flexibility allow us to render another reasonable judgment - if Republicans take the Senate in 2014, hold it in 2016, and Rand Paul wins the presidency, Land is virtually certain to vote for repeal, whereas Gary Peters is almost certain to vote against it. I would be happy to lay 50:1 on this claim and make a $10,000 bet.

While running for office in a blue state, Land's best path to victory is to distance herself from the Tea Party and portray herself as a moderate, centrist, sensible Republican, because that is the best way to win support from Michigan voters.

And I while I do support HSA's, I don't support her position on pre-existing conditions or insurance across state lines. Again, very telling that you do. That's the liberal influence showing.

Why don't you believe people should be permitted to purchase health insurance across state lines? This is pretty much the exact reason the Commerce Clause was included in the Constitution.

Why don't you think an effort should be made to ensure that persons with pre-existing conditions will not be denied coverage in the future?

I'm not averse to the "liberal" label - indeed, I have at various times in the past openly referred to myself as a "classical liberal." The label isn't perfect, but neither do I consider it a slur.

And you expect me to believe that privatizing Social Security will ever come to the table again? GWB coudn't get that through Congress when we had all 3 houses and the economy was going gangbusters. No way will the left wing of the party ever get behind that....the Democrats will yell and they will roll over again, like the good little lap dogs they are. Never afraid to bark at the other dogs in their own pack, but peeing all over themselves when the other pack as much as whines.

What? Where is this coming from? I haven't referenced Social Security privatization even once, so not sure why you're bringing it up now. This seems like a total non-sequitur.

Because we spend so much time and money trying to get the powerful entrenched squishy Republicans out of office that it seems to me to be a no-brainer not to elect more of them.

You are ignoring a critical distinction that exists between red states and blue states. The reason we so badly want to get squishy Republicans out of office in red states is that we can do so much better. We do not need to settle for Thad Cochran in Mississippi, or John Cornyn in Texas, or Lindsay Graham in South Carolina, or John McCain in Arizona, or Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, or Pat Roberts in Kansas.

But we cannot do better than Terri Lynn Land in Michigan. That's just a fact. Michigan is a state full of left-leaning voters, and they will not put a Tea Party Republican in the Senate. Similarly, Maine loves the shit out of Olympia Snowe - she is basically the worst Republican Senator in the country, but I would back her 100% of the time over the monstrosities she faces in general elections.

Different states are different, and different kinds of candidates are necessary for the Republican Party to take and hold power. Having the Republican Party take and hold power is a necessary prerequisite for the Liberty Movement to take and hold power. It is also necessary for the Liberty Movement to take and hold power over the Republican Party. Both of these things are necessary - ignoring the importance of either will lead to the overall failure of the movement.

Terri Lynn Land is a puzzle piece with an important part to play. Do not dismiss her potential as an ally in the fight against the Democrats merely because she is an enemy in the fight to take over the Republican Party.

"I against my brother, my brothers and I against my cousins, then my cousins and I against strangers."

So now you're going to resort to simply insulting me and my intelligence while using a sexist slur because I'm not going to vote for a Rockefeller Republican.

I am not "resorting" to anything. Insulting you and your intelligence while using a sexist slur is not a persuasive tactic designed to win you over. I am dismissing you with disgust, because your failure to think strategically genuinely arouses feelings of disgust. People like you are why liberty has lost so consistently in this country for so long.

To the rest of the forum, this is a taste of what I'm talking about. I won't post details in a public forum, but I had a guy from the Rogers wing of the party get so nasty with me that I literally had to talk my husband out of going over to his house and calling him out. And that was not in a discussion of electoral politics - it was my disagreeing with a proposal to hand the school systems over to the state. Liberals in both parties are nasty bullies on every single level, and if you guys were waiting for an even bigger tell, there it is.) This is the Michigan GOP - nastier to their own than they are the Democrats.

Again, I don't know how I can make this any clearer. I'm not going to vote for a liberal Republican. Not now, not ever. Neither is my husband, and neither is my son, and neither is his girlfriend, and neither are her parents and..... If you're afraid that we might cost you the election, you probably should have considered that before you decided put this particular dog in the race.

You are all so stupid that it literally makes me physically uncomfortable.

I assume you all would have voted for Justin Amash, correct? Why do you think Justin Amash decided not to run for Senate?

Edit: Rhetorical questions are silly. Justin Amash decided not to run for Senate because preliminary polling indicated that he would fare far, far worse than Land in a general election. Land will have a tough time winning (and she'll probably lose), but Amash would get destroyed.

You and I are not the median voter. There are more people in Michigan who will vote for Terri Lynn Land than will vote for Justin Amash. This is a simple fact. And your refusal to support Land does not change that.

 

[angelatc]

Why don't you believe people should be permitted to purchase health insurance across state lines? This is pretty much the exact reason the Commerce Clause was included in the Constitution.

The Commerce Clause was written to allow the federal government to settle disputes about products that crossed state lines, not to require that products sold in one state be available in all 50 states. This would take away the rights of the states to determine what policies can be sold in their states - it's another federal power gab move.

But in addition to the fact that allowing insurance to be sold across state lines obliterates yet another right of the states, my biggest reason for opposing it is because the costs of health care vary widely between different markets, and as a result people in Mountain Home, AR currently pay much less for insurance than people in Manhattan. Allowing the Manhattanites to buy coverage from Arkansas and expecting it to cover the prices in Manhattan will drive the costs up for the people in AR.

Thanks for asking.

As for the pre-existing condition clause, why do you think the federal government should decide who any company must provide services to?

 

[angelatc]

I'm not averse to the "liberal" label - indeed, I have at various times in the past openly referred to myself as a "classical liberal." The label isn't perfect, but neither do I consider it a slur.[

What? Where is this coming from? I haven't referenced Social Security privatization even once, so not sure why you're bringing it up now. This seems like a total non-sequitur.

It's on her web page. I am assuming you didn't cite it because you're opposed to it?

I am not "resorting" to anything. Insulting you and your intelligence while using a sexist slur is not a persuasive tactic designed to win you over. I am dismissing you with disgust, because your failure to think strategically genuinely arouses feelings of disgust. People like you are why liberty has lost so consistently in this country for so long.

You are all so stupid that it literally makes me physically uncomfortable.

Heh. Then we're doing something right! [mod delete]

As for the polls....Nate Silver's model was the most accurate by far in the last election. He was ridiculed through the whole season, but when the dust settled he was pretty much spot on.

He doesn't seem to think the MI-GOP has a snowball's chance of even being a toss-up: http://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/silver-senate-3.png?w=498&h=874 55% and the media hasn't even started giving Land the scrutiny she deserves.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

The Commerce Clause was written to allow the federal government to settle disputes about products that crossed state lines, not to require that products sold in one state be available in all 50 states.

Could you please cite the source for this belief? My view of the Commerce Clause has largely been shaped by law review articles Randy Barnett and Richard Epstein have written over the years, but I don't think you'd find them very interesting. A bit of internet digging led me to this video, however:



Judge Napolitano seems to share my view of the Commerce Clause, and I assume you hold a generally favorable view of Judge Napolitano and his knowledge of Constitutional history. Does this at all persuade you to diminish your confidence in the claim you made above?

This would take away the rights of the states to determine what policies can be sold in their states - it's another federal power gab move.

Are you familiar with McDonald v. Chicago? In that case, the Supreme Court took away the rights of the states to determine what guns can be sold/owned in their states. Would you characterize this ruling as "another federal power grab move"?

But in addition to the fact that allowing insurance to be sold across state lines obliterates yet another right of the states, my biggest reason for opposing it is because the costs of health care vary widely between different markets, and as a result people in Mountain Home, AR currently pay much less for insurance than people in Manhattan. Allowing the Manhattanites to buy coverage from Arkansas and expecting it to cover the prices in Manhattan will drive the costs up for the people in AR.

Since you seem to be confused on this point, I do not favor prohibiting insurance companies from engaging in price discrimination and charging citizens in Manhattan more than citizens in Mountain Home. Any sensible insurance company would choose to engage in this practice if permitted to, because any company that didn't would find itself overcharging Mountain Home residents and therefore losing their business to other companies.

Thanks for asking.

np, thanks for answering.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

It's on her web page. I am assuming you didn't cite it because you're opposed to it?

I didn't cite it because I didn't read it. I haven't bothered exploring her website in detail.

I am in favor of Social Security privatization. Why on earth would you assume that I'm opposed to it?

Heh. Then we're doing something right! [mod delete]....

[mod delete] I have voted for Ron Paul 4 times. I have donated money to Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Greg Brannon. Why do you think we're enemies? Why does displeasing me make you happy? [mod delete]

As for the polls....Nate Silver's model was the most accurate by far in the last election. He was ridiculed through the whole season, but when the dust settled he was pretty much spot on.

He doesn't seem to think the MI-GOP has a snowball's chance of even being a toss-up: http://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/silver-senate-3.png?w=498&h=874 55% and the media hasn't even started giving Land the scrutiny she deserves.

Okay, the only thing I can take from this is that you are retarded, insane, or both. He thinks Land has a 45% chance of winning the election. This number perfectly mirrors everything I have been saying in this thread - that the election will be very close, that Land is a slight underdog, and that she can win if people like you will put aside your irrational hatred, hold your nose, and vote for her.

In what universe do you live where 45% = not even a snowball's chance of being a toss-up. I am struggling to wrap my mind around this and having trouble. [mod delete]

Edit: Okay, I think I see where you might be going wrong here. The 55-45 split refers to the probability that the race will end in one column or the other. It is not a prediction of the final outcome. Look at the rest of the numbers - do you really think he's predicting that Rhode Island will vote 99% for the Democrat or that Idaho will vote 99% for the Republican? Of course not, that would be absurd.

 

[jjdoyle]

Rand also endorsed Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney. He doesn't exactly have a glowing record of endorsements right now. And Rand has gone on record saying the Republican Party probably won't win another presidential election in his life-time, if it doesn't change. How is endorsing, more of the same, helping that? That's what I would like to know.

Rand is trying to apparently self-fulfill his statement, with these kind of endorsements.

 

[angelatc]

Oh Angela. [mod delete] I have voted for Ron Paul 4 times. I have donated money to Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Greg Brannon. Why do you think we're enemies? [mod delete]

[mod delete]

Whatever. Feel free to come back and call us names on election day when Land pulls in less than 46% of the vote, too. [mod delete]

In the meantime, note that I understand and respect your reasons for voting for her even though I disagree with them. [mod delete]

Good luck with the independents.

 

[francisco]

...Oh Angela. [mod delete] I have voted for Ron Paul 4 times.

[Did you vote for RP as a congressman? Because he only ran for President 3 times, in 1988, 2008, and 2012]

Originally Posted by menciusmoldbug...Do you suffer from borderline personality disorder? What on earth is wrong with you?

Okay, the only thing I can take from this is that you are retarded, insane, or both...

A couple of days ago, in another thread, I gave you a rep for the giving the following mildly amusing "Pro Tip" to another poster:

Pro Tip: Turn off the angry/hateful/cranky part of your brain when disagreeing with people and you'll be more likely to arrive at correct conclusions.

Here , in this thread and elsewhere, it seems to me that you'd do well to take your own advice

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Whatever. Feel free to come back and call us names on election day when Land pulls in less than 46% of the vote, too. [mod delete]

For the third time: What odds would you lay that Land will receive less than 46% of the vote, and how much money would you be willing to bet on it?

In the meantime, note that I understand and respect your reasons for voting for her even though I disagree with them.

I live in Texas. I will not be voting for Terri Lynn Land. I will be voting for John Cornyn, although I voted for Steve Stockman in the primary.

[mod delete]

[mod delete] I am not even the slightest bit angry and have displayed no anger whatsoever in this thread. I am dismayed, horrified, and somewhat shocked at encountering such a [mod delete] person, because I usually self-segregate pretty well and do not encounter filth like you very often.

Good luck with the independents.

Good luck getting into heaven.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

[Did you vote for RP as a congressman? Because he only ran for President 3 times, in 1988, 2008, and 2012]

I voted for him in both the primary and general elections in 2008 and 2012.

A couple of days ago, in another thread, I gave you a rep for the giving the following mildly amusing "Pro Tip" to another poster:

"Pro Tip: Turn off the angry/hateful/cranky part of your brain when disagreeing with people and you'll be more likely to arrive at correct conclusions."

Here , in this thread and elsewhere, it seems to me that you'd do well to take your own advice

I am not experiencing any anger or hatred. I do not think crankiness is interfering with my ability to arrive at correct conclusions. If you disagree, which statements have I made in this thread that you believe are incorrect?

 

[francisco]

@ meniscus:

Take three steps back and look at the insults you have directed at others. Not the behavior of a not-angry person.

re your comment

because I usually self-segregate pretty well and do not encounter filth like you very often.

Something tells me that you don't have to "self-segregate" too often, because others do it for you.

And for my part, that's just what I'm going to do now. I have no desire to have any conversation with you, not because of the content of your arguments, but because of the way you present them. You might try to learn something from that, if it is your actual objective to try to influence others. I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that you get this kind of response often (operationally defined: pretty much every day that you have any interaction with another person). Bye.

 

[devil21]

Info on this Teri Lynn Land sure is hard to find. But, if MichaelDavis and compromise are supporting her then she's already received her AIPAC marching orders.

I don't think Rand and his staff can directly (legally) influence RandPAC but they better pay attention to whoever is in control of donating money to candidates. This seems like a pointless donation to a questionable candidate. Reminds me a bit of the C4L donation to Ken Buck....

 

[menciusmoldbug]

@ meniscus:

mencius*

Take three steps back and look at the insults you have directed at others. Not the behavior of a not-angry person.

Sure it is. Rendering a negative judgment of someone does not require feeling anger towards them. I bear no ill will towards anyone and hope for nothing but good things for all.

Some people are better than other people though, and some people are worse than other people. I can't help feeling disdain for morally bankrupt and intellectually crippled people. I do not regret exercising judgment.

re your comment

"because I usually self-segregate pretty well and do not encounter filth like you very often."

Something tells me that you don't have to "self-segregate" too often, because others do it for you.

You mean to insinuate that I am widely disliked and unpopular, and that this is because I have the bad manners to identify human trash for what it is.

Clever.

And for my part, that's just what I'm going to do now. I have no desire to have any conversation with you, not because of the content of your arguments, but because of the way you present them. You might try to learn something from that, if it is your actual objective to try to influence others. I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that you get this kind of response often (operationally defined: pretty much every day that you have any interaction with another person). Bye.

Okay. Bye, [mod delete]! ;-P Gonna go smooch my wife and kid now.