Who would you NOT support?

[Njon]

I don't even think Rand is old enough, is he?

He's 46 according to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/im-very-serious-about-running-ron-pauls-son-says/

 

[Njon]

I am wary of Gov. Sanford on account of him going to the Bilderberg Group meeting:

YouTube - Mark Sanford Confronted on Bilderberg Attendance and Media Blackout 12-9-08

And this:

YouTube - Gingrich: Attack North Korea with electromagnetic pulse
(from http://www.dailypaul.com/node/88995)


Some things about ex-Gov. Ventura at http://www.ontheissues.org/Jesse_Ventura.htm concern me, such as abortion. I'll have to see where he stands as of now.

 

[Nathan Hale]

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."-Thomas Jefferson

Politics is not a matter of principle, it is a matter of compromise - compromise is the very nature of politics because politics requires building coalitions with people you don't always agree with.

And you're aware that you're quoting from the first US president to fight an undeclared war?

We can never expect to have liberty if we don't support candidates who are pro-liberty.

I support candidates who are pro-liberty. You just don't agree that they are pro-liberty because they don't fit your anarchistic definition of liberty.

If the radical never gets a voice because no one will vote for him because they compromise, we are doomed.

Then we're doomed, because that's the way it is. So you have two options - keep pining and wasting energy to get a radical's voice heard, or accept the world in which we live and work within it to effect change.

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater

You are being moderate in your pursuit of justice.

No I'm not. I'm articulating the most effective way to bring about justice. You seem to think that the only way to bring about justice is to support candidates who want your ideal vision of the world implemented tomorrow. Problem is, that's not the most effective way to bring about your ideal vision of the world. So you're being moderate in your pursuit of justice because you refuse to acknowledge what it takes to bring about justice.

 

[nate895]

Politics is not a matter of principle, it is a matter of compromise - compromise is the very nature of politics because politics requires building coalitions with people you don't always agree with.

And you're aware that you're quoting from the first US president to fight an undeclared war?



I support candidates who are pro-liberty. You just don't agree that they are pro-liberty because they don't fit your anarchistic definition of liberty.



Then we're doomed, because that's the way it is. So you have two options - keep pining and wasting energy to get a radical's voice heard, or accept the world in which we live and work within it to effect change.



No I'm not. I'm articulating the most effective way to bring about justice. You seem to think that the only way to bring about justice is to support candidates who want your ideal vision of the world implemented tomorrow. Problem is, that's not the most effective way to bring about your ideal vision of the world. So you're being moderate in your pursuit of justice because you refuse to acknowledge what it takes to bring about justice.

I appreciate the sentiments, Mr. Dickinson.

However, it might be a good idea idea you are "sick" tomorrow for the vote.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I appreciate the sentiments, Mr. Dickinson.

However, it might be a good idea idea you are "sick" tomorrow for the vote.

Duck my post if you like. I think it weakens the movement for you to do so, but if you don't have what it takes to think strategically, there's nothing I can do to help you.

And, as an aside, its plainly obvious that your knowledge of the Continental Congress is limited to HBO's "John Adams" and other pop culture gibberish. But, even assuming the "John Adams" version of John-Dickinson-as-weak-hearted-buffoon, the situation is not analogous because this movement is nowhere near where the American Revolution was in 1775. The same option-set is not available to us.

 

[nate895]

Duck my post if you like. I think it weakens the movement for you to do so, but if you don't have what it takes to think strategically, there's nothing I can do to help you.

And, as an aside, its plainly obvious that your knowledge of the Continental Congress is limited to HBO's "John Adams" and other pop culture gibberish. But, even assuming the "John Adams" version of John-Dickinson-as-weak-hearted-buffoon, the situation is not analogous because this movement is nowhere near where the American Revolution was in 1775. The same option-set is not available to us.

Hahaha, challenge my knowledge of history, you fool. I will let that one slide.

 

[Natalie]

I would support all of them.

 

[Natalie]

Oh nevermind, I would not support Mark Sanford. I did not notice his name on there.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Hahaha, challenge my knowledge of history, you fool. I will let that one slide.

Say whatever helps soothe your bruised ego, I'd rather not jump into some debate about Dickinson anyway because that's off topic.

Respond to the logic presented in my 5:21 post from yesterday, if you're up for it.

 

[nate895]

Say whatever helps soothe your bruised ego, I'd rather not jump into some debate about Dickinson anyway because that's off topic.

Respond to the logic presented in my 5:21 post from yesterday, if you're up for it.

What logic? The logic of an ignorant strategy of a moderate libertarian? It just doesn't make any sense. I want liberty damn it, I am not going to compromise for anything less. If you are willing, go right ahead and continue to vote for the lesser of two evils; I can't stop you.

 

[Nathan Hale]

What logic? The logic of an ignorant strategy of a moderate libertarian?

First, I'm not a moderate libertarian, I just have realistic objectives. Second, what about my strategy is ignorant? Please, be specific.

It just doesn't make any sense. I want liberty damn it, I am not going to compromise for anything less.

I understand you're angry and frustrated, but you need to understand that by taking your path you are, in essence, choosing to never have your liberty, because you are by action arranging the situation so your liberty will never manifest.

If you are willing, go right ahead and continue to vote for the lesser of two evils; I can't stop you.

Here's the thing - you're voting for the greatest evil. Insisting on anarchism tomorrow and refusing to vote for candidates who won't commit political suicide is tacit surrender to the system, and that's the greatest evil.

 

[nate895]

First, I'm not a moderate libertarian, I just have realistic objectives. Second, what about my strategy is ignorant? Please, be specific.



I understand you're angry and frustrated, but you need to understand that by taking your path you are, in essence, choosing to never have your liberty, because you are by action arranging the situation so your liberty will never manifest.



Here's the thing - you're voting for the greatest evil. Insisting on anarchism tomorrow and refusing to vote for candidates who won't commit political suicide is tacit surrender to the system, and that's the greatest evil.

Your strategy is ignorant because we have momentum. I was just talking with someone yesterday who was a pro-war type conservative. He was bashing the Fed and agreeing with most of my points about smaller government, and I have barely ever talked about politics with him. You want to take this momentum and direct it at lower taxes and half-hearted social liberalism (they don't even deserve the name libertarian)? That is just stupid. We need to take all this conservative dissatisfaction and soon-to-be overall dissatisfaction and direct it towards real libertarian values.

BTW, when did I say I was an anarchist?

 

[nate895]

Another problem with your so-called "strategy" is that since those policies are more moderate, they might not work very well and then we have another shift back towards statism because anything bad that happens will be blamed on libertarianism.

 

[ARealConservative]

Ron Paul gets to dodge the bullet by hiding behind the constitution. A governor does not have such a luxury.

Many of you would be in for quite a surprise if Ron Paul was a state politician.

 

[Jeremy]

Ron Paul gets to dodge the bullet by hiding behind the constitution. A governor does not have such a luxury.

Many of you would be in for quite a surprise if Ron Paul was a state politician.

You make it sound like freedom doesn't work and we are only libertarians because the Constitutions says we have to be.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Your strategy is ignorant because we have momentum.

Yes. But most of our momentum comes from our mainstream-friendly partners/actions/events. We have motion, but we have nowhere near enough to achieve plurality market penetration with radical candidates.

I was just talking with someone yesterday who was a pro-war type conservative. He was bashing the Fed and agreeing with most of my points about smaller government, and I have barely ever talked about politics with him. You want to take this momentum and direct it at lower taxes and half-hearted social liberalism (they don't even deserve the name libertarian)? That is just stupid.

I never said that. Bashing the fed is great - but keep in mind that our best fed momentum right now comes from a moderate move to audit the fed, not a move to eliminate the fed.

We need to take all this conservative dissatisfaction and soon-to-be overall dissatisfaction and direct it towards real libertarian values.

We can - so long as the chosen libertarian message (and there are many different libertarian messages) is one that they will accept.

BTW, when did I say I was an anarchist?

I use the term as a placeholder for tip-of-the-diamond radical libertarianism, which you (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to endorse.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Another problem with your so-called "strategy" is that since those policies are more moderate, they might not work very well and then we have another shift back towards statism because anything bad that happens will be blamed on libertarianism.

I disagree. A moderate policy has a better chance of working because it can fit better within the current formula of public policy.

 

[He Who Pawns]

I will support Ventura if he drops the 911 Truth nonsense. Having him out there as "our guy" will be very damaging to us if he starts spouting off 911 Truth nonsense. Sanford is another I will probably not support. I'd rather vote 3rd party.