Who’s the Libertarian Now?

[Brian4Liberty]

bite me.

it's not the easiest task defending Johnson for us libertarians, but what you've written is what republicrats would define as "hate speech"

Lol. You don't have to tell me.

Best results come from just pushing the third party access angle. And in solid Red or Blue states, tell the minority party people that their vote won't matter anyway, so might as well protest vote for the Libertarian Party.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

So what is your point? What conclusions are you drawing from the lack of interest in discussing Trumps perceived outsider status?

I suggest many here do not want to grow the liberty movement by applying any of the lessons learned over the last eight years and three defeats, or any of the lessons learned from the anti-establishment trend about exactly how to fight the elite, or any of the lessons learned about how to build the coalitions needed to win the nomination and the election. They just want another Paul-style candidate who runs an educational campaign for the 5-10% liberty base and politely engages the MSM, instead one who engages the voting blocs needed to build to 51%, while smashing the elite.

I have no objection to running such educational campaigns within the LP universe, where the expectation of winning elections is low. I do find it a problem when done within the major party universe, where the objective is supposed to be winning elections and changing policy. But it appears they seem to believe a 5% alternative candidate can reach 51%, without making a serious appeal to voters beyond the base, and without confronting a totally resistant establishment, because they think simply running within the GOP primaries, all by itself, makes the concept feasible.

Trump thought Iraq was a great idea and a success.

Trump (as a then non-politician) is not on public record as to clearly opposing the Iraq war until 2004, so before that point no one definitively can say either way. The salient point is he is on record as questioning or objecting to the war for the last 12 years, and clearly repudiates it and its promoters in the current campaign:

We should have never been there. Somebody says, oh, that's not good to criticize? I say criticize? It's one of the worst decisions in the history of the country. We have totally destabilized the Middle East. We spent $2 trillion... Could have rebuilt our country. We could have done so much with that money. And instead, we're worse in the Middle East than we were 15 years ago. Right now, it's a disaster.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

But it doesn't work like that. He abandoned the consistency that, more than anything, made is father so dear to liberty minded individuals. He can never regain that consistency, his word will always be suspect.

I like Rand Paul. His filibuster won me, made me believe that he was still authentic and just playing the media's game of veneers.

Trump is a waste if perfectly reasonable outrage. I wish Ron would have run again, thats all I can say-because he actually was on the side of the little guy- Then I could at least vote. Though ill be writing his name in anyways.

I'm not voting for Trump because I have ben taught:, by life, by a philosophy I share with Dr. Paul, and my time on this very forum, not to betray my honestly held political principles. You know, be "consistent."


Edit: and I am really disappointed that so many of the people here, and in 08 and 12, seem willig to abandon the consistency, like just another plebian fad.

I'm not ready to throw the towel in on Rand quite yet. He has made some mistakes, but he can correct them and be stronger in future Presidential runs.

The people who want to bury their heads in the sand and double-down on Rand's failed approach are the ones who are holding the liberty movement back from success right now. I fear that the movement will be lost if Rand shows up in 2020 or whenever and lays another egg again, and that's exactly what will happen if no soul-searching is done.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...The neoconservatives and especially the teocons had worked tirelessly to paint Rand as an establishment toady, most specifically of McConnell. Rand was rapidly losing the mantle of outsider, and it seemed that nothing could fix that. They knew they could marginalize Rand with Ron supporters by maneuvering him to appear to agree with the neocons in some instances, and then they could turn around and pound him again if he appeared to side with McConnell and the Chamber. At the same time, they pumped up Rubio and Cruz. It was blatant, most typified by pundits like Levin and Hannity, along with all of the usual neocon online pundits.
...

And Levin went ahead and made his case again today. He talked about a story with only one purpose, to call out Rand for siding with the RINO establishment and Democrats. He read through the entire rollcall, with special emphasis when he got to Rand. This has been going on for years.

Link to the story if anyone is interested:

Thanks to a GOP Senator, Obama’s ‘Far Left’ Pick Confirmed to Head Library of Congress
http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/13/s...k-to-head-library-of-congress-in-rushed-vote/