Will a Jeff Flake Victory help the Liberty Movement?

[sailingaway]

Yea so low... he's one of the best liberty people will have in the Congress and he beat out Ron Paul on the Liberty index in 2010 (I posted the link a few pages back)

You people are insane. The standards you all set will destroy this movement, and the hubris you all carry is flat out sad.

Voting against an amendment to remove indefinite detention for American citizens without trial is not a HIGH cut off level, imho.

No offense, but what exactly ARE your standards for 'liberty people'?

 

[AuH20]

Yea so low... he's one of the best liberty people will have in the Congress and he beat out Ron Paul on the Liberty index in 2010 (I posted the link a few pages back)

You people are insane. The standards you all set will destroy this movement, and the hubris you all carry is flat out sad.

I'm a big tent guy but I have some major issues with some of his votes. I don't like that he voted for CAFTA and supports amnesty as well as in-state tuition subsidies for illegals to go along with his NDAA/Patriot Act issues. There is too much there to ignore. Granted, I hope he wins but i won't be sending him a check anytime soon.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

Great post. You've always been a winner.

I see you're still pimping RLC here.

Bye bye. Thanks for playing.

You do realize that Ron fucking Paul is on the board of the RLC right?

 

[sailingaway]

You do realize that Ron fucking Paul is on the board of the RLC right?

I don't think he is any more, actually. But saying 'RLC has some good candidates and can be worth working with' is different than encouraging contempt of people who have higher standards than their minimum cut offs.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Yea so low... he's one of the best liberty people will have in the Congress and he beat out Ron Paul on the Liberty index in 2010 (I posted the link a few pages back)

You people are insane. The standards you all set will destroy this movement, and the hubris you all carry is flat out sad.

Liberty Index does not include civil liberties for the last fucking time.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

There's a reason activity on this forum is plummeting and it's in large part got to do with the standards you're setting against candidates and posters. The nuts are driving out the voices of reason here and you're all backing yourself into a corner you're not going to be able to get out of and it's really quite sad.

This forum is going to deteriorate until it's nothing but another wing of infowars (it's already there really) and it will be because of the ridiculous standards you're setting against everyone. You'll all corner yourself right into the stereotypes they've given you.

You people are nothing but a handful of posters on a forum, this movement is so much bigger than you it's not even funny, and to simply disregard large chunks of the tent because they aren't pure enough for you and your ridiculous standards will get us nowhere.

Again... Flake beat Paul on the Liberty Index in 2010. Say what you will about the index itself he is WITHOUT A DOUBT a Liberty person and to tear down his campaign, and ultimately allow someone ALL OF US CAN AGREE IS BAD, because of your own purity standard is bullshit.

Justin Amash voted for unlimited foreign aid to Israel, guess he's bad too?
Rand endorsed Romney... can't trust him either.

I guess we should just drive out anyone who isn't Ron Paul so we can be left with... oh right... absolutely nothing.

Again, the standard you're all setting is the type of standard that needs to be set when we have 300Reps and 50Senators, not 5 reps and 2 Senators.

The fact you people can't see how destructive this all is is just sad... sooo damn sad.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You do realize that Ron fucking Paul is on the board of the RLC right?

No sir, I'm pretty sure that he no longer is. That ended about 4 years ago if I recall correctly.

 

[KingNothing]

This forum is going to deteriorate until it's nothing but another wing of infowars (it's already there really)

This is unbelievably true. The only reason I frequent this place anymore is to actually try to reason with those folks to prevent it from happening.

 

[sailingaway]

There's a reason activity on this forum is plummeting and it's in large part got to do with the standards you're setting against candidates and posters. The nuts are driving out the voices of reason here and you're all backing yourself into a corner you're not going to be able to get out of and it's really quite sad.

This forum is going to deteriorate until it's nothing but another wing of infowars (it's already there really) and it will be because of the ridiculous standards you're setting against everyone. You'll all corner yourself right into the stereotypes they've given you.

You people are nothing but a handful of posters on a forum, this movement is so much bigger than you it's not even funny, and to simply disregard large chunks of the tent because they aren't pure enough for you and your ridiculous standards will get us nowhere.

Again... Flake beat Paul on the Liberty Index in 2010. Say what you will about the index itself he is WITHOUT A DOUBT a Liberty person and to tear down his campaign, and ultimately allow someone ALL OF US CAN AGREE IS BAD, because of your own purity standard is bullshit.

Justin Amash voted for unlimited foreign aid to Israel, guess he's bad too?
Rand endorsed Romney... can't trust him either.

I guess we should just drive out anyone who isn't Ron Paul so we can be left with... oh right... absolutely nothing.

Again, the standard you're all setting is the type of standard that needs to be set when we have 300Reps and 50Senators, not 5 reps and 2 Senators.

The fact you people can't see how destructive this all is is just sad... sooo damn sad.

I do take issue with some of Amash's votes and consider him, as a freshman, to be a work in process. the vote he voted badly on was a resolution, not a funding bill, however. But giving away that level of money with all the money being given in Congress, and the overwhelming vote, doesn't reach the level of the NDAA vote, imho. That is like using a traffic ticket by one person to justify murder by another, the scale is completely off.

And traffic dropped after Rand's endorsement, actually if you want to track the numbers back. I don't like to see it, but I don't think it is because our standards for candidates are the same as they always have been.

 

[JoshLowry]

You do realize that Ron fucking Paul is on the board of the RLC right?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nts-for-2012&p=3742635&viewfull=1#post3742635

 

[JoshLowry]

There's a reason activity on this forum is plummeting and it's in large part got to do with the standards you're setting against candidates and posters. The nuts are driving out the voices of reason here and you're all backing yourself into a corner you're not going to be able to get out of and it's really quite sad.

This forum is going to deteriorate until it's nothing but another wing of infowars (it's already there really) and it will be because of the ridiculous standards you're setting against everyone. You'll all corner yourself right into the stereotypes they've given you.

You people are nothing but a handful of posters on a forum, this movement is so much bigger than you it's not even funny, and to simply disregard large chunks of the tent because they aren't pure enough for you and your ridiculous standards will get us nowhere.

Again... Flake beat Paul on the Liberty Index in 2010. Say what you will about the index itself he is WITHOUT A DOUBT a Liberty person and to tear down his campaign, and ultimately allow someone ALL OF US CAN AGREE IS BAD, because of your own purity standard is bullshit.

Justin Amash voted for unlimited foreign aid to Israel, guess he's bad too?
Rand endorsed Romney... can't trust him either.

I guess we should just drive out anyone who isn't Ron Paul so we can be left with... oh right... absolutely nothing.

Again, the standard you're all setting is the type of standard that needs to be set when we have 300Reps and 50Senators, not 5 reps and 2 Senators.

The fact you people can't see how destructive this all is is just sad... sooo damn sad.

People have been saying the forum is going downhill for five years. It's always going to be going somewhere.

Traffic dropped heavily in 2008. There is an offseason and a limit on how much one gives. We were busy with Rand in 2009 and 2010.

2011 generated a lot of good activism here.

I think some of the things that Rand and Amash have done are disgusting. I think this might be the first time I have voiced it publicly on my site.

We are our own small faction in this movement. We ARE doing things differently. Leave us alone.

I want to see a movement realized that isn't co-optable.

 

[Carlybee]

I agree....we don't need to be co-opted. We need more people who think like us not them.

 

[ninepointfive]

There's a reason activity on this forum is plummeting....and it's really quite sad.

This forum is going to deteriorate until it's nothing but another wing of infowars (it's already there really) and it will be because of the ridiculous standards you're setting against everyone. You'll all corner yourself right into the stereotypes they've given you.

You people are nothing but a handful of posters on a forum, this movement is so much bigger than you it's not even funny, and to simply disregard large chunks of the tent because they aren't pure enough for you and your ridiculous standards will get us nowhere.

because of your own purity standard is bullshit.
.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this so I'll point it out: You've made contradictory statements in this post.

You talk about this forum degrading into infowars, while in the next statement imply that a purity test is pushing out large portions of the Liberty movement.

Do you understand that infowars is a larger part of the movement than you may want to admit? Is it not hypocritical to be critical of segments of the liberty movement such as infowars, while implying you belong in a different "camp"?

Seriously mindboggling to me that you can claim some sort of authority of statement here, while not realizing you're guilty of the same "crime".

 

[juleswin]

There's a reason activity on this forum is plummeting and it's in large part got to do with the standards you're setting against candidates and posters. The nuts are driving out the voices of reason here and you're all backing yourself into a corner you're not going to be able to get out of and it's really quite sad.

So are you suggesting we drop our standards so as to accommodate more people? Continue that line of thinking and we all be backing Romney for president. Nobody is perfect not even Ron himself but we have to draw the line somewhere. These kinds of things tend to come back and bite us in the ass if we ignored it. Imagine trying to convert say a civil liberty independent or liberal to our course, now how the hell can u explain to him/her that you supported a candidate who supported the Patriot act, NDAA, Iraq war and cap and trade (one of the few republicans to voice their support for it)?

One thing I hear from liberals every time I talk to them about these issues is this, "where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?", "how come you didnt say anything until my guy did it?". This is the reason why we cannot allow the liberty movement to be seen lying down with such politicians.

 

[AJ Antimony]

This thread is pretty much done now since one side of the debate here has been mysteriously silenced, but let me try to cool this thread down by resetting the topic at hand...

The reality of the situation is:
- We have an open US Senate seat in Arizona thanks to the retirement of Jon Kyl (statist Republican)
- The winner of the open GOP primary will likely hold on to the safe GOP seat for as long as he wants
- This presents an incredible opportunity for Ron Paul Nation to pick up a big time, safe seat
- The GOP candidates are: Wil Cardon (statist Republican), Jeff Flake (libertarian-leaning Republican), and that's it. There is no Ron Paul Republican in this race.
- If Ron Paul Nation sits idly by, then it's possible Cardon wins and the statist Republicans stay in power
- If Ron Paul Nation gets involved to any extent and helps Flake win, then the statist Republicans lose a seat, and we gain at least a libertarian-leaning seat.

Nobody in this thread is arguing that we should ever vote against Ron Paul Republicans. I think what people like me are trying to argue is that when there is no Ron Paul Republican on the ballot, it's in our best interests to support the best possible Republican candidate. This doesn't mean that when someone like Flake wins then that's it and he's an incumbent for life. If as a Senator he starts voting like Kyl then we are free as Republicans to challenge him in the primary. We as Republicans can challenge any incumbent we want.

We as a movement are constantly trying to earn respect from the GOP. They will never respect us if all we do is show up to their meetings every 4 years to support a single, non-preferred candidate. They will respect us if we show up constantly and support many GOP candidates. 'Support' can mean whatever you want, it doesn't only mean financial support. The more respect we have from the GOP, the more they will actually help us when we successfully win primary elections and delegate battles.

The GOP isn't just a tool we can grab away from others when we feel like it. Others will grab back, and they have the financial and political resources to grab back harder. We can 'share' the GOP while still being 100% committed to our beliefs and to our 100% pure candidates. The GOP will never be able to "co-opt" us and somehow force us to vote for their preferred candidates. We will always vote for OUR preferred candidates. But when we fail to even place our candidates on the ballot, we have to learn how to make the best of the situation, and I think we do that by supporting the best candidate available so that in the future, when we do win, the rest of the party will support us.

*Again, "support" is up to you to define, and that's ok. It can be as simple as voting for someone, to as extreme as donating money to someone.
*Also, don't get me wrong, if there was a primary battle between a couple absolutely horrible neocons, and there was nothing close to a libertarian-leaner on the ballot, then it would be ok to sit that race out. People will understand. After all, good candidates are required to excite the base and the voters, and if they can't excite you then that's a problem on them, not you.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So are you suggesting we drop our standards so as to accommodate more people? Continue that line of thinking and we all be backing Romney for president. Nobody is perfect not even Ron himself but we have to draw the line somewhere. These kinds of things tend to come back and bite us in the ass if we ignored it. Imagine trying to convert say a civil liberty independent or liberal to our course, now how the hell can u explain to him/her that you supported a candidate who supported the Patriot act, NDAA, Iraq war and cap and trade (one of the few republicans to voice their support for it)?

One thing I hear from liberals every time I talk to them about these issues is this, "where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?", "how come you didnt say anything until my guy did it?". This is the reason why we cannot allow the liberty movement to be seen lying down with such politicians.

Completely this. It's one thing if you want to expand the influence of this movement but you're not going to accomplish this by compromising. People gravitated to Ron Paul because he stuck to his guns, even in the face of tremendous criticism from the very same party that WE are supposedly trying to take over. The political activism within the grassroots effort is going to take some time to grow in terms of pushing OUR candidates but if you start settling so easily for guys like Flake by ignoring gravely important areas like civil liberties, then the activism is going to deflate. If young people are supposed to be the future of this movement and eventually take the torch, so to speak, it's going to be through principles and not constantly setting ourselves up for the lesser of two evils.

 

[cajuncocoa]

So are you suggesting we drop our standards so as to accommodate more people? Continue that line of thinking and we all be backing Romney for president. Nobody is perfect not even Ron himself but we have to draw the line somewhere. These kinds of things tend to come back and bite us in the ass if we ignored it. Imagine trying to convert say a civil liberty independent or liberal to our course, now how the hell can u explain to him/her that you supported a candidate who supported the Patriot act, NDAA, Iraq war and cap and trade (one of the few republicans to voice their support for it)?

One thing I hear from liberals every time I talk to them about these issues is this, "where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?", "how come you didnt say anything until my guy did it?". This is the reason why we cannot allow the liberty movement to be seen lying down with such politicians.

Completely this. It's one thing if you want to expand the influence of this movement but you're not going to accomplish this by compromising. People gravitated to Ron Paul because he stuck to his guns, even in the face of tremendous criticism from the very same party that WE are supposedly trying to take over. The political activism within the grassroots effort is going to take some time to grow in terms of pushing OUR candidates but if you start settling so easily for guys like Flake by ignoring gravely important areas like civil liberties, then the activism is going to deflate. If young people are supposed to be the future of this movement and eventually take the torch, so to speak, it's going to be through principles and not constantly setting ourselves up for the lesser of two evils.

You guys nailed it....+rep to you both.

@juleswin...when liberal friends ask "where were you when Bush was doing the same thing?", "how come you didnt say anything until my guy did it?" you will want to be able to honestly answer: "I was right here complaining about those things, just as I'm complaining right now when Obama is doing them. Why aren't YOU complaining as loudly as you did when Bush was doing those things?"

 

[pcosmar]

I think what people like me are trying to argue is that when there is no Ron Paul Republican on the ballot, it's in our best interests to support the best possible Republican candidate.

Is there any besides a republican?
Pretty much anyone except a Republican,, to send a clear message that they NEED to reform.

They have had shit before,,why not a democrat.. Certainly could not be any worse that the "R's" I have been seeing. Well,,maybe worse, but possibly a damn sight better.

Why do we always have to choose between "shit" and "turd" ?

Not my area or vote,, but just transferring from my experience here.

 

[JorgeStevenson]

Who's talking about settling for Flake? We're talking about supporting a guy who would be a much better alternative than the other guy. Flake isn't the epitome of a liberty candidate, but he shares common ground with us on fiscal issues. Wouldn't our movement benefit by having him in congress instead of a guy with whom we share no common ground?

(as predicted, this thread is stuck in the same spot it was 24 hours ago)

 

[pcosmar]

Flake isn't the epitome of a liberty candidate, but he shares common ground with us on fiscal issues.

I keep hearing that,, (yes I have been following the thread)
How is supporting MASSIVE Government Intrusion and Bureaucracy translated into "Fiscal responsibility"?
Just what "fiscal Issues" does he share any common ground,, and do you have evidence beyond rhetoric?