Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

[TheTexan]

Ok. I'll start co-mingling people like Bill Maher, Glenn Beck, and oh yes, Dondero, when I speak of libertarians and see how well you like it. They refer to themselves as "libertarians" after all. lol. It would make as much sense as what you are doing.

Go for it. There are plenty of fake libertarians out there. Especially the big L kind.

Again... bullshit. That is not true at all and yes, I did dispute it.

If you say so!

 

[Republicanguy]

I personally believe, as the price of energy goes up, America may just have one term leaders from both parties.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, it isn't and no honest person can claim otherwise. Ron has been in office more than twenty years longer than Rand.

What does the length of time have to do with anything?

 

[Matt Collins]

No, it isn't and no honest person can claim otherwise. Ron has been in office more than twenty years longer than Rand.

What major differences exist in their voting records?

 

[sailingaway]

What major differences exist in their voting records?

actions are more than just voting records, but there are differences. It isn't worth debating them because you care or you don't.

 

[Matt Collins]

It isn't worth debating them because you care or you don't.

Oh, I think it IS worth debating them because that's how people arrive at conclusions.

 

[sailingaway]

Oh, I think it IS worth debating them because that's how people arrive at conclusions.

I think people have arrived at conclusions and repeating that statement of yours over and over doesn't address how they arrived at those conclusions. But that is just me.

 

[DylanWaco]

What does the length of time have to do with anything?

To say they have virtually the same voting record isn't possible when they serve in different chambers at one guy has been in office ten times as long as the other.

 

[DylanWaco]

What major differences exist in their voting records?

One guy believes sanctions are an act of war.

The other guy votes for them.

Now give me your pre-packaged central bank spiel so I can ignore it.

 

[Tod]

Would/Should our strategy change if between now and then the economy tanks and everyday life is significantly different for Americans? I think so. If things go south in a significant way, maybe we should concentrate almost exclusively on who we elect to state offices.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Would/Should our strategy change if between now and then the economy tanks and everyday life is significantly different for Americans? I think so. If things go south in a significant way, maybe we should concentrate almost exclusively on who we elect to state offices.

I'm expecting the economic cataclysm between March and December of 2014.

 

[Matt Collins]

One guy believes sanctions are an act of war.

And unfortunately Ron is incorrect on that, with an exception. Sanctions are not an act of war, unless the receiving country considers this so. So far Iran has not considered sanctions an act of war, therefore they are not.

The other guy votes for them.

Only to sanction the Iranian central bank. If China sanctioned the Federal Reserve, I'd be very happy about that.

 

[sailingaway]

And unfortunately Ron is incorrect on that, with an exception. Sanctions are not an act of war, unless the receiving country considers this so. So far Iran has not considered sanctions an act of war, therefore they are not.

Only to sanction the Iranian central bank. If China sanctioned the Federal Reserve, I'd be very happy about that.

I disagree with both your statements.

To the first, that is nonsense on its face, but regardless, I'm pretty sure I saw where Iran said they were an act of war.

To the second, if the Fed were sanctioned WE would have to pay. You can pay my share.

 

[DylanWaco]

Matt knows the first statement is stupid, but he's aiming to get a gig with Rand in 2016, so he has to start spouting feces now. All this nonsense is just resume building.

 

[sailingaway]

Here is PressTV which I'm pretty sure is connected to the Iranian govt, at least I have read so, saying the sanctions are an act of war: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/08/06/254726/iran-sanctions-no-less-than-act-of-war/

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I will say this again. Ron Paul is wrong on defining sanctions. He says they are both acts of war AND they lead to war, that is not logically possible.

However, I disagree with sanctions for three reasons.

1-They rarely accomplish anything in terms of changing a country's policy.
2-They hurt the people of the country on a whole; creating anti-American resentment.
3-They really prop up despotic governments.

So Ron and Rand are both wrong on sanctions for different reasons.

I still agree with Peter Schiff, that if we are going to make sure Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, then we should destroy their nuclear facilities and let that be the end of it. I have also had debates with myself(and others) on weighing the utilitarian cost/benefit of Iran having nukes vs. not having them, and I do believe the world would be many times safer in the latter situation. It would be a rare beneficial preventive action, and those obviously are few and far between if history is any indicator. Still, I don't know for sure the truth about their nuclear weapons program; I am just a normal civilian. The military goal is accomplished, the people are not oppressed, and it actually leaves the despotic government in a weaker position than it was before.

However, I still strongly support both Ron and Rand, even though they are wrong in my view. There are bigger fish to fry and bigger problems to solve that we cannot be rigid in our support of people based on a few differences.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I disagree with both your statements.

To the first, that is nonsense on its face, but regardless, I'm pretty sure I saw where Iran said they were an act of war.

To the second, if the Fed were sanctioned WE would have to pay. You can pay my share.

Exactly. Sanctioning the Fed is a BAD thing.

The Fed IS in control of our currency and banking system. Very few of us are not apart of it.

And forget preventing the financial cliff when creditors stop lending, the cold turkey would be in effect immediately, with an incredible loss of life and chaos in this nation. We would be brought to our knees.

That is not why Rand voted for sanctions; that is a stupid hypothesis. Rand knows economics better than that.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

or 400 members of state legislatures.

Go here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391938-Operation-Slow-Motion-Coup-d-etat

-t

 

[DeMintConservative]

It looks like there will likely be a primary fight in 2014 for US Senate between the current State House Speaker and my good friend Greg Brannon. Brannon will have a coalition of 'every Republican but the establishment,' having already won over the Tea Parties and the teapublicans etc. We have a better chance in NC that you realize, it will be mostly a matter of building a county-by-county grassroots network, and funding the media battle.

I confess I've never heard of Greg Brannon. A cursory google search returns a Greg Barnon, MD who seems to be involved with local TP groups. Is that him?

Seems like a prototypical Some Dude to me. Can he self-fund? I understand he's your friend, but the success rate of not-self funding (read millionaire) Some Dude in statewide races for competitive seats is basically zero - starting with the primaries. Plus, if he's a "true believer" in Ron Paul platform, he'll struggle with a majority of the Republican base there.

As I see it, the primary will probably feature Thom Tillis, as you say: and, while you may not like him, defining him as "the establishment candidate", he was the leader of the GOP takeover of the House, he built a lot of good will (he quit his job to fundraise and campaign for local candidates all over the state). Plus, coming from Mecklenburg, he can syphon traditionally democrat votes in the general limiting Hagan's path to victory.

Then I suspect Patrick McHenry will be his major opponent (and probable winner).

Now, if besides these two, you also have, say, one of the congressmen we're going to elect this year running, plus some lower office holder like Steve Troxler - just a random example - then the field becomes so crowded that I can see a Some Dude Paulite winning the race. Otherwise, unless he's an extraordinary natural political talent, I wouldn't rate his chances as high as you.

 

[DeMintConservative]

If sanctions are acts of war, then why aren't tariffs acts of war as well? Or even any sort of border control procedures?

Plus, if sanctions are acts of war, does that mean there's a casus belli for a military attack on Iran? Because after the 1979 revolution, pretty much every American asset in Iran was expropriated and nationalized and American investments and importations prohibited by the Iranian regime and most of these sanctions remain in place.

I can certainly see a case for stating a blockade is an act of war. Saying these type of economic sanctions are acts of war is just a consequence of the type of logical gymnastics that Murray Rothbard was forced to promote in order to fit reality into his "every war under the sun was somehow a result of an US government action" mantra.

That said, while I tend to be opposed to sanctions on utilitarian grounds (rarely there's a status quo that justifies the imposition of limits to the right of commerce; and when one exists, economic sanctions rarely work, as GeorgiaAvenger points out), apparently this is one of those rare cases in which not only there's enough of a rationale to justify them and they seem to be working, as the regime is struggling to blame the deterioration of the economic conditions, which is undeniably happening, in external forces - a consequences of the popularization of internet among a very young population and how widespread the support for the sanctions is (similar to the SA apartheid regime sanctions in the 80s).