Which liberty candidate to give to?

[angelatc]

How the hell did this thread turn into this anyways? It was a good thread about vetting candidates.

Maybe we should just give to Elizabeth Warren and be done with it. According to her, our money technically belongs to the government anyway.


It will sure make Kennedy look like a moderate in retrospect.

 

[Kluge]

Maybe we should just give to Elizabeth Warren and be done with it. According to her, our money technically belongs to the government anyway.


It will sure make Kennedy look like a moderate in retrospect.

Great idea. According to her, pretty much everything belongs to the government. We're lucky they don't just take all of it from us.

 

[angelatc]

My understanding is that he is in a dicey position, and particularly having lost Glen's seat, I'd hate to lose that one.

Also, while Amash isn't perfect, he seems more pure than I suspect Bills is. Bills is more a big improvement on the other guy, has a few really good planks, and would owe his election to Ron.

Amash is running unopposed in the GOP primary (unless somebody filed last week and I missed it), while the Democrats have two strong candidates - a moderate pro-life Democrat who has the union support, and a farther left progressive that I don't think has held office, but has extensive ties to the party as well as the media.

The district is more liberal than it was last time around, so yeah - Justin could use some cash.

 

[specsaregood]

Maybe we should just give to Elizabeth Warren and be done with it. According to her, our money technically belongs to the government anyway.

It will sure make Kennedy look like a moderate in retrospect.

So, she is just holding her millions in safekeeping for the govt? When do we get to go claim it?

 

[angelatc]

Great idea. According to her, pretty much everything belongs to the government. We're lucky they don't just take all of it from us.

Yep. Social Contract. Even a guy like Bill Gates or Mitt Romney, both of whom pay more income tax in a year than I'll pay in my life, owe endlessly more. It's in the social contract she signed on our behalf.

 

[angelatc]

So, she is just holding her millions in safekeeping for the govt? When do we get to go claim it?

Stupid proles. There is nobody capable of managing her money better than she does. That doesn't mean she isn't better at managing yours than you are.

 

[specsaregood]

Stupid proles. There is nobody capable of managing her money better than she does. That doesn't mean she isn't better at managing yours than you are.

ahah!, but its NOT her money.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I'll assume you know where the Ministry of Truth reference comes from. And yes, there are phonies in Congress. Is that controversial? As far as a "secret" club, there's nothing secret about it. It's all in the public view. There is a large number of intertwined organizations and special interest groups that shape government actions. Nothing secret or mysterious about it. As a gross generalization, it's a form of Corporatocracy, Oligarchy or Plutocracy. How do you think it all works?

I don't know where "Ministry of Truth" comes from. My guess is 1984, since you're saying it's a reference to something.

Plutocracy is one thing; a conspiracy that encompasses basically every single member of congress to the point that they switch off on opposing and supporting billsfor the purpose of fooling everyone who isn't part of congress is another.

Following Occam's razor, it makes much more sense to think that many congressmen are overworked and ignorant - and that some are significantly influenced by political donations and party whips. As a result, there are a number of people who vote - overall - one way or another based on reason, others who vote based on outside influences, and some who vote based on a mix of both. And, as I've said before, more Democrats, while having a lot of positions that I disagree with, tend to vote for rights legislation and consider research than do Republicans.

And there are plenty of people who say the opposite, that O'Reilly is fair and balanced, and Maddow is the extremist. Difference in style does not mean the net effect is any different. Who would a politician rather be ambushed by, a shouting jerk like O'Reilly, or a smiling, smarmy person like Maddow? Same results either way.

Do you support Ron?

People say a lot of things that are nonsense. If you look at the facts about the journalistic integrity of each of the hosts, there are very clear distinctions.

Not only do I support Ron, I've donated to several money bombs and posted some confirmations of those donations in threads on this forum. I don't see any legitimate reason to question that I'm here in support of him.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't know where "Ministry of Truth" comes from. My guess is 1984, since you're saying it's a reference to something.

Bingo!

Plutocracy is one thing; a conspiracy that encompasses basically every single member of congress to the point that they switch off on opposing and supporting billsfor the purpose of fooling everyone who isn't part of congress is another.

You are saying conspiracy, I am not.

Following Occam's razor, it makes much more sense to think that many congressmen are overworked and ignorant - and that some are significantly influenced by political donations and party whips. As a result, there are a number of people who vote - overall - one way or another based on reason, others who vote based on outside influences, and some who vote based on a mix of both. And, as I've said before, more Democrats, while having a lot of positions that I disagree with, tend to vote for rights legislation and consider research than do Republicans.

Now you are echoing my original sentiment. Nothing about how the system works defies common sense. You did leave out special interest groups, business sector lobbies, think tanks, special PACs, various Foundations and Councils, international groups and associations, etc., which probably exert more influence than donations alone or even Party Whips, depending on the group.

Not only do I support Ron, I've donated to several money bombs and posted some confirmations of those donations in threads on this forum.

Good. So do I. And to bring this full circle, I give a great deal of weight to endorsements by Ron Paul, including his endorsement of Art Robinson.

You come from a left perspective, and are influenced by Maddow. You have your opinion and that's fine, but when it comes to candidate endorsements, I take Ron Paul over Maddow every time.

OK, don't want to derail this candidate thread anymore. Back to candidate discussions.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

You are saying conspiracy, I am not.

I equated "secret club" with conspiracy. If you see enough of a difference between the two, I'm fine with the distinction.

Some of the things you pointed out were intended to be implied by "donations" and "Party whips".

You come from a left perspective, and are influenced by Maddow. You have your opinion and that's fine, but when it comes to candidate endorsements, I take Ron Paul over Maddow every time.

OK, don't want to derail this candidate thread anymore. Back to candidate discussions.

I don't think that I'm influenced by Rachel, but that I generally tend to agree with her lines of questioning and discover valuable resources and information through her work. I also prefer to check those resources and dissenting information before making a claim during discussions on forums like this one.


I appreciate the amicable ending to the back-and-forth, and I'm good with ending it there.


Back on topic, I favor Justin Amash because of his commitment to explaining his votes and his apparent interest in both listening to and responding to his constituents. That commitment and those interests seem to be rare in politics in general.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

I like this guy.

http://christopherdavid2012.com/ron-paul-republican

But I'm biased.

I'll make a plug for Chris. That website link tells the story pretty well, but just personally would like to add that he worked his butt off on some last-minute Iowa facebook ads and webpages that I thought were pretty amazing.

Here's one of the RPF threads on Iowa that shows some of the work he put in:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?344311-How-to-reach-3-000-Iowans-for-10-POTENTIAL-GAME-CHANGER-ChipIn-to-Win-Iowa&highlight=iowa+facebook+ads+christopher+david

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I'll make a plug for Chris. That website link tells the story pretty well, but just personally would like to add that he worked his butt off on some last-minute Iowa facebook ads and webpages that I thought were pretty amazing.

He sounds good, from the videos he's made, but he hasn't responded to the questions that I PMed to him here. Until I get some discussion going with him on those issues, I can't say whether I'd support him or not.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I equated "secret club" with conspiracy. If you see enough of a difference between the two, I'm fine with the distinction.

You first used both "secret club" and "conspiracy":

Maybe you just believe that there's a vast governmental secret club running almost everything.

a conspiracy that encompasses basically every single member of congress to the point that they switch off on opposing and supporting billsfor the purpose of fooling everyone who isn't part of congress is another.

There may be a distinction to be made, but as you brought up both terms, we can call them synonyms for the purpose of the previous discussion.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

You first used both "secret club" and "conspiracy":

Oh come on. Be fair. You accepted the use of the term. You only qualified that it wasn't secret.

I'll assume you know where the Ministry of Truth reference comes from. And yes, there are phonies in Congress. Is that controversial? As far as a "secret" club, there's nothing secret about it. It's all in the public view.

 

[Rick Williams]

Christopher David for Congress (California 33rd) www.christopherdavid2012.com and Jenny Worman for Congress (California 28th) http://wormanforcongress.com/

Also, look up your California Assembly District and vote for your local liberty candidates running for GOP Central Committee-- they're all over the place; but voters need to find them.
www.rickwilliamsforsenate.com

 

[EBounding]

Kerry Bentivolio's chances may have just gone up considerably:

McCotter's spot on GOP August ballot in question

U.S. Rep. Thad McCotter's re-election bid may be in jeopardy over questions about the number of petition signatures he submitted to appear on the August ballot.

The Livonia Republican and former presidential candidate said late Friday he's been informed by state officials that his campaign may not have enough signatures to appear on the August GOP primary ballot.

This would make him the only Republican candidate in the primary! If this is true, McCotter would still probably mount a write-in campaign and the general election would be brutal as well, but it still improves our chances.

 

[devil21]

Moneybomb for Art Robinson on Monday!

 

[Primbs]

Ron Paul book author Karen.http://karenkforcongress.com/about/

 

[Libertyloyal]

I'm not sure about his chances of winning, but former libertarian presidential candidate RJ Harris is running for the U.S. House in Oklahoma. Don't know too much about him, but I was impressed with him in the libertarian debates. He may be worth checking out: rjharris2012.com

 

[cjm]

I hate to say this because I hate to offend anyone and certainly don't mean it as an attack, but Robinson is a far better candidate than Karen Kwiatkowski. Electorally, he has a better chance of winning, and his organization is far superior.

I'm neither offended nor taking this as an attack, but what exactly makes his organization "far superior"? I'm involved with Karen's campaign and was completely unaware that our organization was far inferior to Robinson's. Please let me know where we can improve so that we can run the best campaign possible. Thanks.