Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[KingNothing]

Yea, this whole discussion boils down to defining the term "liberty candidate/movement".

...oh. who cares? Its semantics. Voting records speak for themselves.

 

[tsai3904]

...oh. who cares? Its semantics. Voting records speak for themselves.

Exactly. I could care less if Rubio is considered a "Tea Party" candidate.

Just look at their voting records and judge yourself based on the issues that are most important to you.

 

[cajuncocoa]

that is a different branch of the tree, and something we absolutely need to focus on, as with Audit the Fed. But when it comes to asking for funding for CANDIDATES as liberty candidates, it would be useful to either have a definition we agree on, or at least a set of issues where we specify their position and reason we have for believing they are sincere.

Unless I find the second coming of Ron Paul, I'm pretty much done with funding candidates...it's too easy to get burned. Think I'll hop on over to the issues branch of the tree.

 

[libertskee]

Wow. A lot has happened since I last checked this thread.

First off, I agree that Jeff Flake is not a pure Liberty candidate. I consider myself a voluntaryist, so he is pretty far from my ideal candidate. All I was trying to say is that having an extra senator to vote with Rand, DeMint, and Lee on MANY of our issues will be be an overall POSITIVE for our movement.

Also, I don't understand why people are giving the Liberty for All PAC such a hard time. The Ramsey fellow spent a ton of money to elect Massie and is giving a much needed boost to the Bentivolio campaign. Massie and Bentivolio are well accepted on these forums as "Liberty candidates". Just because you disagree with one move they are making, doesn't mean you should write off an organization that has a lot of potential to help us and has already done some good things.

 

[sailingaway]

And again with Flake regarding NDAA he did vote against the 2012 bill that established indefinite detention. It was the 2013 bill (after indefinite detention was already signed into law) that he voted for. And while he did vote against the Smith Amash Amendement, there were provisions in that amendment that went over and above the mere reversal of the indefinite detention clauses.

No, only over and above the 'American citizen' part.
There is no part of Smith Amash that should not be a no brainer for a 'liberty candidate'.

Ron's bill went further.

 

[sailingaway]

Wow. A lot has happened since I last checked this thread.

First off, I agree that Jeff Flake is not a pure Liberty candidate. I consider myself a voluntaryist, so he is pretty far from my ideal candidate. All I was trying to say is that having an extra senator to vote with Rand, DeMint, and Lee on MANY of our issues will be be an overall POSITIVE for our movement.

Also, I don't understand why people are giving the Liberty for All PAC such a hard time. The Ramsey fellow spent a ton of money to elect Massie and is giving a much needed boost to the Bentivolio campaign. Massie and Bentivolio are well accepted on these forums as "Liberty candidates". Just because you disagree with one move they are making, doesn't mean you should write off an organization that has a lot of potential to help us and has already done some good things.

no one has written them off, we are wondering if they were misled in this particular situation, or if they actually support Flake kind of candidates, generally.

 

[gerryb]

Unless I find the second coming of Ron Paul, I'm pretty much done with funding candidates...it's too easy to get burned. Think I'll hop on over to the issues branch of the tree.

There is no one your supporting locally? Young Republican Chairs, College Republican Secretaries, Precinct Captains, nothing?

 

[jkob]

Wil Cardon is just absolutely terrible.

Saw a Liberty For All Superpac ad for Flake yesterday

 

[NoOneButPaul]

Changing thread titles to fit your own agenda is pretty damn disingenuous.

It's hilarious how often this site censors what people say when they don't agree with the majority here.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think Flake's race is a bit different than a standard Presidential race. In a presidential race, it literally does not matter who you vote for. No matter who wins, we'll be saddled with someone who will increase the national debt, support the expansion of government, have a hostile foreign policy, shred civil liberties, and endorse the Federal Reserve. Flake isn't perfect, sure. But is his opponent? One of those two will win. Will either work to end the Fed? Will either support a repeal of the Patriot Act & NDAA? Will either be an anti-war crusader? No on all accounts, correct? At the very least, Flake will try to lessen the debt. Given the choice between that, and someone who is wrong on all fronts, why not take that?




Further, it would certainly be better to have Republicans control the Senate if Obama is in the White House (which he almost certainly will be.) At least then we can hope to have partisan bickering slow down the growth of the state.

While elections work for tyranny to the benefit of tyranny and to the detrement of the disadvantaged people, the American Movement has always worked outside of the electoral process to the detrement of tyranny and to the benefit of the disadvantaged people. How can anyone deny this and claim to be on the side of the disadvantaged people? Well, I guess they can just be asleep. Zzzzz . . .

 

[tbone717]

No, only over and above the 'American citizen' part.
There is no part of Smith Amash that should not be a no brainer for a 'liberty candidate'.

Ron's bill went further.

I think the "American Citizen" part is a big deal. I read the text of the amendment today, and I would have voted against it if I were in the House. I'm not sure of all the legislative action that went on, but I am unaware if anyone proposed an amendment with better language.

 

[sailingaway]

Changing thread titles to fit your own agenda is pretty damn disingenuous.

It's hilarious how often this site censors what people say when they don't agree with the majority here.

I didn't do it, but it isn't 'disingenuous' at all. It is the tweeting of RON PAUL FORUMS and the site traffic here that makes thread titles get tweeted out and near the top of google searches. If RPF wants its thread titles to not carry appearance of endorsement of non RPF ideas, that is absolutely fair.

 

[sailingaway]

I think the "American Citizen" part is a big deal. I read the text of the amendment today, and I would have voted against it if I were in the House. I'm not sure of all the legislative action that went on, but I am unaware if anyone proposed an amendment with better language.

Ron proposed one that cut out the entire sections. However, leadership wouldn't bring it to the vote.

Smith Amash was the best brought to vote, and I think anyone who let indefinite detention continue when it could have been so cut back is not a liberty candidate. I see no possible liberty justification for voting against that bill.

Obviously, you differ, but it just shows how meaningless the terms are, and how much people need to nail down specific positions of candidates not just assume they know what those positions are because someone calls them a 'liberty candidate'.

 

[AJ Antimony]

no one has written them off, we are wondering if they were misled in this particular situation, or if they actually support Flake kind of candidates, generally.

Misled? They are the only libertarian-leaning super PAC that has flat out stated that they are primarily interested in winning elections. Massie's primary race was winnable, Bentivolio's race is winnable, Flake's race is winnable.

Candidates like Robinson and Hamlin are NOT in winnable races. I bet if Bills' race becomes more competitive they will make some ad buys for that race.

 

[specsaregood]

I didn't do it, but it isn't 'disingenuous' at all. It is the tweeting of RON PAUL FORUMS and the site traffic here that makes thread titles get tweeted out and near the top of google searches. If RPF wants its thread titles to not carry appearance of endorsement of non RPF ideas, that is absolutely fair.

Which account is supposedly twitting these? linkie? Thanks in advance.

 

[cajuncocoa]

There is no one your supporting locally? Young Republican Chairs, College Republican Secretaries, Precinct Captains, nothing?

No, there isn't. Reason being, I'm not into hearing promises when people want to be elected, only to be burned when they claim they made a "pragmatic decision". The GOP is on a short leash with me. I won't say I'll never vote for a worthy GOP candidate, but I just don't know any right now...other than Ron Paul.

 

[sailingaway]

Which account is supposedly twitting these? linkie? Thanks in advance.

as far as I know, RPF is only tweeting the stuff on the front page, but Economic Mayhem and two or three others (Liberty something and Jason (?) B something (the avatar is a Red Pill) tweet them, at minimum, in an 'I assume it is a bot' way.

 

[tbone717]

Ron proposed one that cut out the entire sections. However, leadership wouldn't bring it to the vote.

Smith Amash was the best brought to vote, and I think anyone who let indefinite detention continue when it could have been so cut back is not a liberty candidate. I see no possible liberty justification for voting against that bill.

Obviously, you differ, but it just shows how meaningless the terms are, and how much people need to nail down specific positions of candidates not just assume they know what those positions are because someone calls them a 'liberty candidate'.

The problem with the amendment was that it went too far. The author (Smith) is to the left of Pelosi based on his voting record. In all honesty, to me the amendment reads like it was written by the Code Pink crowd.

I feel that by not specifying "citizens" in the amendment, it would mean that foreign combatants captured on US soil would not be able to be held by the military, but would have to be transferred over to civil court. That changes a US policy that has been in place forever IIRC. If I remember my history, when we captured British soliders during the war of 1812, we didn't give them a civil trial. At least that is my understanding when I read the bill. Keep in mind, I'm an economics guy not a defense guy.

The Paul one, if it is as you described, should have been the one to go to the floor. But Goebert (or whatever his name was) was the one who got his amendment to the floor. The Dems put up the Smith amendment, which is too far left for my tastes.

All in all it is another reason, why we need more of our guys in the House. So in a situation like this, the Paul one would have been the one that was introduced.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Misled? They are the only libertarian-leaning super PAC that has flat out stated that they are primarily interested in winning elections. Massie's primary race was winnable, Bentivolio's race is winnable, Flake's race is winnable.

Candidates like Robinson and Hamlin are NOT in winnable races. I bet if Bills' race becomes more competitive they will make some ad buys for that race.

Seems to be two kinds of members debating in this forum. Either they are lawyers, or they lick the boots of lawyers. If it ain't the legal way, there ain't no way. Well, I guess even these kinds of folks can be trusted more than a Santa Anna boot licker (the illegal who crosses over the border with the idea that the tyranny they just fled from is somehow better than the United States).

 

[sailingaway]

The problem with the amendment was that it went too far. The author (Smith) is to the left of Pelosi based on his voting record. I feel that by not specifying "citizens" in the amendment, it would mean that foreign combatants captured on US soil would not be able to be held by the military, but would have to be transferred over to civil court. At least that is my understanding when I read the bill. Keep in mind, I'm an economics guy not a defense guy.

The Paul one, if it is as you described, should have been the one to go to the floor. But Goebert (or whatever his name was) was the one who got his amendment to the floor. The Dems put up the Smith amendment, which is too far left for my tastes.

All in all it is another reason, why we need more of our guys in the House. So in a situation like this, the Paul one would have been the one that was introduced.

regardless of whether the one is 'too far left' if it requires non military picked up on the streets here need a trial, which I think is in the Constitution as well, I think choosing to NOT vote away indefinite detention for American citizens for fear of having to give due process to foreigners picked up on the streets of the US (as we have historically done for criminals including deadly ones, including terrorists) is not the sign of a liberty candidate. And 'left / right' red meat terms don't persuade me.