CELTICEMPIRE

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul agrees with Baldwin on immigration but he's not as obsessed with it. Again though, I don't really care about the issue. Its also worth mentioning that while Baldwin is not a libertarian, he's not as radically theocratic as the constitution party platform.

As for tariffs, I disagree with any tariffs to "Protect American Jobs" or anything like that (This is another disagreement I have with Baldwin.) I don't really have a problem with tariffs in order to raise revenue. Its one of the least intrusive ways for government to make money. Honestly, I really am an anarchist philosophically but in the real world I think a minimal state is going to lead to a lot less aggression than just having a total power vaccuum, and the minimal state has to fund itself somehow. I care less about how they do it and more about how much they take.

Yeah, Chuck Baldwin's minor obsession with illegal immigration is somewhat annoying. I don't even care if they come here, as long as we aren't doling out welfare. Immigration is fairly low on my priorities list though, and there's not even a universally agreed upon libertarian position on it. Hans Hoppe, for instance, supports some immigration restrictions in the real world even while being an anarcho-capitalist, while Walter Block supports 100% unrestricted immigration.

Yes, they could change. He could also be lying to appease the security hawks. I get this.

On intervention, yeah, I'm much more of a noninterventionist than you are. That's not necessarily a problem though. I probably would say something like what you said 18 months ago.

I don't agree with Chuck on everything, but he was a crapload better than either Johnson or Barr. Gary is too much of a federalist, and doesn't realize just how evil the UN is, while Barr just baiscally sucks across the board.

Anyway, my issue here in particular was Rand's idiotic statement about drones. It doesn't mean the LP won't support him, Barr voted for the Patriot Act after all, and even worse, endorsed Gingrich while Ron Paul was still in the hunt in 2012. Gary Johnson wasn't the perfect candidate by any means, but he's clearly better than Rand at this point. Gary was a bit liberal on social issues, and only moderate on economics, but when it came to civil liberties issues like this one, he was pretty rock solid. Did you watch the third party debate this year? In addition to wanting to withdraw immediately from Afghanistan, he also wants to TOTALLY eliminate the use of drones in warfare.

Talk to me in a few days when I'm not pissed off and I'll probably be able to be more level-headed about this, but right now I am revolted by Rand Paul and the thought that I was absolutely positive that I was going to vote for him 24 hours ago Rand just doesn't get the danger of our government...

First, I didn't say they wouldn't, I said they shouldn't.

Secondly, Gary did say that he wouldn't "Just sit there and let the Holocaust happen." I'm not sure whether or not you would support intervening in WWII to help the Jews or not (A lot of otherwise noninterventionist people understandably make this exception, I don't.) Ron Paul has always said it was only justifiable because of Pearl Harbor, while most other Rothbardian leaning people argue that the sanctions were an act of war (Admittedly, I think this idea is a little ridiculous, but it certainly qualifies as a grievance.)

I think Gary might have advocated intervention in a few other cases of genocide, but I'm not sure. Rand Paul does support occasional intervention as well, which I had forgiven him for. That wasn't my beef with Rand in this case. But yeah, last time the LP had a genuinely good candidate was 2004 with Badnarik, Barr SUCKED while Johnson was mediocre. 2008 CP candidate Chuck Baldwin was way better.

I will note that my dad, who isn't even a libertarian either, agreed with me that the idea of drones being used on US soil is ridiculous. Granted, if I had to classify him, he'd probably be a paleoconservative, so he's not really mainstream GOP (Although he is a Republican) but the bottom line is, he's not even a libertarian and he was unhappy with this. Can I tell him he should vote for Rand right after trying to talk him out of voting for Romney in 2012? Truth be told, I really can't. Its compromise, and toxic compromise at that.

Yesterday I was fully on Rand Paul's bandwagon. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do now. I think the only way we can truly fix the GOP is to run ourselves

I'll probably vote for him, after all, who else am I going to vote for? I can't really advertise him anymore though. I don't feel right about it. Honestly, if someone better than him, even a long shot, runs in '16 I'll probably support them instead. I'm truly displeased with Rand right now.

He thinks his father's base will support him no matter what. No: We won't.

I don't want the LP to support him now, he's not worthy of them. Then again, I am kind of ticked off right now. Rand Paul is frankly being an idiot here and he needs to wake up, or he deserves to lose his father's base and the Presidency.

To be continued....

Rand Paul just disappointed me again.

Man, this is definitely a roller coaster ride. He just doesn't understand that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. That and collateral damage...

Right.

Yeah, much as we hate him, we probably have Obama to thank for that. When Rubio or Jeb Bush gets in and does the same thing, most of it will probably fade. I hope not, however.

I wouldn't really have a problem with it, but I can understand the fact that Rand Paul is not a libertarian. At all. By any definition that works.

Rand Paul is a constitutional conservative. Not a libertarian. So for the LP to nominate him would just be odd.

Then again, the LP hasn't actually picked a libertarian since 2004 when they picked Michael Badnarik. Gary Johnson was more of a libertarian leaning moderate, while Bob Barr was a drug warroring neoconservative idiot who endorsed Newt Freaking Gingrich in 2012 (I strongly, STRONGLY believe Chuck Baldwin was the better candidate that year, and Ron Paul eventually endorsed him as well. Baldwin basically sounds like Ron Paul on everything except social issues, where he's more conservative.)

So yeah, if the LP can pick Barr and Johnson for no good reason, they should be able to pick Rand Paul for an actual political reason...

LOL! Not sure if Rand is hardcore enough for Ron though. I don't think Ron Paul would go for the politcs playing that Rand is doing. Of course, Ron is going to SUPPORT his son but I don't think Ron would allow Rand to talk about "Radical Islam" or such on Ron Paul's campaign. And Rand/Ron would lead to Ron Paul being a purist and Rand being a moderate, which would send conflicting messages.

I'd be happy with it though. Heck, I'll be happy if Rand Paul actually pulls this thing off.

I expect so. Which doesn't bother me too much. I already expect it.

I bet Ron Paul would pick Napolitano or someone else of that nature.

I wouldn't vote for Rubio, but he'd probably be better than the Democrat alternative. Rubio would quickly get corrupted though. Its hard to say how much. I don't know if he really knows what he believes in.

I'd rather Rubio over Bush for sure.

I think Christie is going to get into it too. I absolutely hate the man though. He's terrible on everything.

Rand Paul wouldn't do that. He'd endorse Jeb for the same reason he endorsed Romney. I don't like it at all but that's political reality.

If Rand went third party I'd vote for him, if he wins in the GOP I'll vote for him. I'm definitely not voting for Jeb Bush. I think most Americans are tired of the Bushes as well...

I hope so. Rand Paul has quite a battle ahead of him if he wins. I hate to say it, but a liberty candidate needs to be willing to play dirty. We need to use the executive order to repeal unconstitutional legislation. I wish we could also arrest those who vote for unconstitutional legislation for treason as well, although that won't happen.

You hear about George W. wanting Jeb Bush to run? My dad always votes Republican but he's sick of the Bushes, I think he might finally be willing to vote 3rd party if Jeb Bush is the nominee. Of course, if Rand Paul is the nominee, we'll both be voting GOP.

I'll probably register GOP to vote for Rand in the primary, but vote Libertarian in general elections unless someone like Rand Paul becomes the nominee. So far I like Rand Paul and Mike Lee. I don't like any of the other GOP senators. Some liberty folks like Ted Cruz but he's a traitor for voting to give the Federal government people's medical info.

I don't know if Mccain voted for the background checks, but he and Graham voted to allow the legislation to be voted on. I was referring to the Boston bombings though, Mccain and Graham want to use NDAA 2012...

Just wanted to mention you scared me for a minute in the "Rate Obama" thread...

I haven't yet. I don't know the local candidates either, so no idea who I'm going to vote for. Its likely I'll be stuck writing in my own name. Chris Christie has shown me that even local level Republicans suck in the Northeast.

Have you been following RINOs Graham and Mccain lately?

Yeah, and it took forever for them to activate my account for some reason. If you're considering getting into it you might want to register now and then when you want to post just start whenever.

Word of warning, Rand Paul is an EXTREMELY controversial topic in some quarters. Some people absolutely worship the ground he walks on, while others think he is a neocon extremist in liberty movement's clothing. Of course, both those who think he is an undercover Rothbardian and those who think he's an undercover John Mccain are both ridiculous, but you'll see a few of them. BE CAREFUL when wading into any debate about Rand

Someone on RPF just told me that Rand Paul's 17% flat tax excludes the first $50,000. That's something I want to double check because if Rand is really for excluding that much he is much more solid than I thought he was.