Rand Paul Announcing Run For The Presidential Nomination

[Cerberus]

but, "Paul" is a modernpostedclarkslightneopseudoconservativepostWWIIisolationistleaningbigmoneywithaslightpinksocialprogramleaning candidate.

And I'm a postWWIIedclarkeratrueconservativefreedomleaningpseudomoderatemilitarylovingworldengaginglibertarian.

How could I possible support such a heretic to the "true" Liberty loving freedom people.

lets just stay home since "our guy is not in the race. Then we can complain about the Democrats in office.

And what makes you think Libertarians will vote for your liberty hating neocons, or that we stayed home because "our" supposed guy wasn't running. Our guy always runs. Don't complain if a demorat wins when you're wonderful side runs the Mass moron, that didn't really want to win.

 

[D-Ric902]

There are real, card carrying, freedom loving, pro Liberty Libertarians that are *gasp* not pro legalization. I quoted a top physics prof quoting a well known political philosopher. Take your purists arguments to him and.......

Live with it.

If your going to have a heresy test on each and every person, your party is going to be really, really.....really small.

 

[D-Ric902]

And what makes you think Libertarians will vote for your liberty hating neocons, or that we stayed home because "our" supposed guy wasn't running. Our guy always runs. Don't complain if a demorat wins when you're wonderful side runs the Mass moron, that didn't really want to win.

Dont complain about a democrat win by pointing to the other side and saying "I can't vote for _____ you guys ran a (whatever purity, heresy failing candidate) so I couldn't vote for him. I wrote in "Donald Duck"instead. If "you guys" want to win my vote then you must meet each and every one​ of my criteria.



but at least your "pure, and uncompromising" (and in the minority)

the primaries is where you have the argument.
the majority of the party vote for local reps to vote for the platform that the majority of the party can support and primary candidates for the majority of the party to vote for the one that supports the majority of the positions on the majority of the issue the majority of the time then vote in the election for,the candidate that the majority supports. See a theme there?

the minority that stomps their feet and goes home has no right to complain when they don't get the best officials possible. If your minority opinion on a minority issue gains more support and becomes a majority issue and position then will you go find another minority position to cling to?

I think maybe it's just counterculture/rebellious/self pity/attention needy/self important/what about me/I said my piece, but you don't agree/self deprecating type of whining that makes some people happy.

 

[steveh_131]

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.




but, "Paul" is a modernpostedclarkslightneopseudoconservativepostWW IIisolationistleaningbigmoneywithaslightpinksocial programleaning candidate.




And I'm a postWWIIedclarkeratrueconservativefreedomleaningps eudomoderatemilitarylovingworldengaginglibertarian .




How could I possible support such a heretic to the "true" Liberty loving freedom people.


lets just stay home since "our guy is not in the race. Then we can complain about the Democrats in office.

is there a point buried somewhere in that mess?

 

[steveh_131]

What on earth are you on about.

We're talking about Rand Paul. I like Rand, but he's certainly not 'pure' as a libertarian. And yet, here we are supporting him.

 

[D-Ric902]

So,
"rand" isn't "pure" but we can support him.

but a physics prof or J.S. Mills must be in lockstep to be quoted?
doesnt that mean supporting "Rand" is a "logical fallacy"?

oh wait, he's pro-pot.
Ok he is libertarian enough.
(no hippocracy there)

I believe the [STRIKE]heresy test[/STRIKE] issue is legalization, not libertarianism

sig line stands

 

[D-Ric902]

What on earth are you on about.

We're talking about Rand Paul. I like Rand, but he's certainly not 'pure' as a libertarian. And yet, here we are supporting him.

*sigh*
lets review, no it's too much lets sum up.
posts# 341-347, 350-352, 355-362

(Michigan still sucks)

 

[D-Ric902]

Wait... D-Ric isn't a physics professor...

I had a good start, when the rabbit died. Everything changed then

(Michigan sunks btw)

 

[steveh_131]

Let's break this down.

You quoted him because you believed he was some sort of libertarian "authority", and as such we should accept any libertarians who support drug prohibition.

We pointed out that he is no libertarian authority, in fact many libertarians disagree with him.

You can quote him all you want, but let's not pretend that you're proving anything.

Also, I poked a big hole in your entire premise when I pointed out that even us "purists" support Rand, and he's not pure.

 

[D-Ric902]

we should accept any libertarians who support drug prohibition.

even us "purists" support Rand, and he's not pure.

so you read the paper in post #357 right?

so as I said, your heresy test for libertarians is drug legalization.

got it

 

[steveh_131]

Certainly, supporting drug prohibition is contrary to libertarian principles. One of many tests I'd use.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't support someone in office who isn't perfect based on those tests. Rand isn't, but he'd be a great improvement over the status quo.

 

[jbombelli]

Certainly, supporting drug prohibition is contrary to libertarian principles. One of many tests I'd use.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't support someone in office who isn't perfect based on those tests. Rand isn't, but he'd be a great improvement over the status quo.

That's why he won't win the primary. Honestly I just don't care anymore. America will get everything it votes for, complete with the well-deserved consequences, even though so many people pretend those consequences don't exist.

 

[D-Ric902]

Certainly, supporting drug prohibition is contrary to libertarian principles. One of many tests I'd use.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't support someone in office who isn't perfect based on those tests. Rand isn't, but he'd be a great improvement over the status quo.

what if "Rand" is not the nominee, would you consider writing him in?

dont give me some cop out about "I would have to see who the nominee is" BS

would you write him in if he loses the primary? To who is immaterial.
if you would consider writing in a candidate not on the ballot without a chance of winning the election. Then no other nominee will meet your criteria but yours.

 

[jbombelli]

what if "Rand" is not the nominee, would you consider writing him in?

dont give me some cop out about "I would have to see who the nominee is" BS

would you write him in if he loses the primary? To who is immaterial.
if you would consider writing in a candidate not on the ballot without a chance of winning the election. Then no other nominee will meet your criteria but yours.

What would be the point of writing him in after he loses the Republican Primary? He can't run as an independent here if he already lost a primary. Write in votes for him wouldn't even be counted.

 

[Cerberus]

I'm sure if another "R" nominee has a proven record of doing his best to support liberty, then many (probably most) Libertarians will support him. If another neocon, rino, then I'm most positive we will go give out 2-4% of the vote to whomever our candidate is.

We ain't looking for pure, we ain't looking for perfect, but we damned sure are looking for principled.

 

[D-Ric902]

I'm sure if another "R" nominee has a proven record of doing his best to support liberty, then many (probably most) Libertarians will support him. If another neocon, rino, then I'm most positive we will go give out 2-4% of the vote to whomever our candidate is.

We ain't looking for pure, we ain't looking for perfect, but we damned sure are looking for principled.

is that a yes, you would write in. Knowing that they have no chance of winning?
To make a "statement" to somebody/someone/somewhere

 

[steveh_131]

I wouldn't write in a name. I'd vote for whoever is the best candidate on the ballot.

 

[jamil]

I think what D-Ric is getting at, back in 2012 after Ron Paul didn't win the nomination, some INGO supporters said they'd write him in on their ballot.

D-Ric, yes, sometimes libertarians can be pretty purist-minded. Rand Paul is far from a "pure" libertarian, yet they have expressed support for him. This shows that they are at least a little pragmatic.

Anyway, if both the establishment choices are people you can't stand, pragmatism is out the window. For example, I don't agree with Cruz, and I really hope he doesn't win the primary. If he did, it would probably be the most lopsided landslide win for Democrats in history. But I'd vote for him still. However, if the fat ass pussbag somehow got the nomination I'd still show up to vote for other offices on the ballet. But I'd probably write in a name for President because I see him as no better than Hillary, which is saying a lot.

BTW, do you know why the Buckeye football team can't drown?





























**** floats.

 

[Cerberus]

is that a yes, you would write in. Knowing that they have no chance of winning?
To make a "statement" to somebody/someone/somewhere

I've never written in a candidate in my life. And I don't do anything to make a statement. You obviously are oblivious to the concept of principle. I always vote whomever comes closest to my beliefs regardless of party. I even voted for a local demorat once as he was the least draconian running for that office.

 

[D-Ric902]

I wouldn't write in a name. I'd vote for whoever is the best candidate on the ballot.

thank you

(Ed Clark , Libertarian Party, was on the ballot in all fifty states and DC in 1980 and got over one million votes, if he wasn't running against Reagan he would have won more. The GOP was a lot more conservative for the next ten or fifteen years. That's how to do it again)