Senator Paul gives the RINOs as much heart burn as Cruz does. He's not afraid to take on the hildabeast calling out her lies and deeds. The long knives are out for Paul, Walker and Cruz. That tells me both sides fear them. Good!!! None of the three line up on all the subjects that I find important. Yet they are far closer to what this country was founded on then Bush or any of the other blue blood RINOs
And so the idiots in the Main Stream media begin their racist bullshit.
The McConnell endorsement was a mistake, but his willingness to compromise on amnesty is a deal killer for me.
That's too bad really because I like his willingness to take on the stupidity of the "war on drugs" and his being against being the world police militarily.
Still, I could see him being a good influence in a Cruz cabinet.
I was disappointed by the McConnell endorsement. The amnesty compromise was not surprising, the majority of libertarians are for open borders. I myself would be all for them if we had a free market and a government that respected the absolute sanctity of private property. However as we live in a welfare state and they are currently importing net consumers of resources that will vote to take away even more resources from the producers I have big issues with it as it stands now.
This is indicative of a problem for Rand -IMHO. He is clearly going to alienate the neo-cons. But how does he court the libertarian leaners without alienating the social conservatives and vice versa. Cruz faces this, but to a far lesser extent. Republicans have a proven history of winning with evangelicals on their side, and he seems quite capable of exciting them more than anybody else out there.
This is how I define libertarians in a nutshell: 1) fiscally conservative, 2) politacally and diplomatically noninterventionist and basically neutral, and 3) socially liberal and maybe even progressive. That smacks of pale pastel to me! I'd much rather vote for the dark horse, with long odds, merely because it draws a stark distinction to its competition. Give me a Ted Cruz all day long. Love him or hate him, you know where he stands on the issues!
@hisham
I see how the social aspect might appear that way, but it might be helpful to think of the degree of libertarianism in terms of something that is simply opposed to aggression (although certainly not self defense) as a method of coercion. That is why libertarians seem to fill the spectrum. For example:
Drug policy- libertarians oppose aggression to coerce people to not do drugs. So in that instance they appear to be liberal.
Free Speech policy- Libertarians oppose aggression to coerce people into silencing their speech. So in that instance they appear conservative.
Making wedding cakes for ceremonies that are against your religion- Libertarians oppose aggression to coerce people to do not only this, but oppose aggression in coercing anybody to serve anybody anywhere for any reason. So in this instance they appear reactionary.
Yeah, basically, we Libertarians want to take over the world, and leave everyone alone. As for the open borders, you have to look at the overview, not just one aspect of the Libertarian plan. Since there would be no welfare for able bodied people, and the economy would be roaring along in high gear with the lack of over taxation and over regulation, there'd be little need for a huge force to keep illegal aliens out.
@Flashingsctosman
I agree.
As long as there were NO welfare for ANY illegals, I would be willing to reconsider the open borders thing, but I am still not looking forward to the importation of the MS-13 and drug cartel thugs, and we won't even discuss the Muslim extremists.
@PJ49
That is a good point about the gangs and extremists. But I think a lot of that would take care of itself. With a lot less things being illegal the gangs are going to go out of business. Leaving all those resources for the brave men and women in blue to fulfill one of the few legitimate functions of government, that is protecting life and property.
IF, and that's a BIG IF, the Libertarians follow through with their Constitution following, and ease up on the overregulation, then in all likelihood, gun ownership would be much less restricted, and gun owners would be able to shoot the criminals in their neighborhoods, then we could count on the decimation of the gangs and extremists, but without the lifting of these restrictions, I see it as a free for all for the bad guys to take advantage of the lax border security and drug and other regulations.
Meh. He is right, he is a different kind of Republican- while better than BHO or Hilliary, he's not my first pick. Frankly, he and Cruz seem to operate on a different frequency- I can't put my finger on it.
Could "different frequency" mean more conservative values minded and Constitution following?
Maybe it is because Ted Cruz has steadfastly and unwaveringly maintained his core principles and beliefs whereas Rand has evolved toward the center "Establishment" area, a place that Cruz is not welcome and will not go. They are currently ignoring Cruz (at their peril I might add) because they think they can marginalize him, but they cannot because he is busy raising a ton of money ($31 million in one week is a lot of money for a "marginal" candidate) and persuading people to support him. Rand should read this--it's correct. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/13/ted-cruz-is-the-most-underrated-candidate-in-the-2016-field/
No, like a personality disorder- when I watch him I get that odd feeling. You have to be a bit odd to be president, it's an odd job and meglomaniacs have an advantage in this field. BHO, Clinton and Nixon.
The other issue is that Libertarianism isn't a coherent governing strategy. It all sounds great, but replacing something with nothing isn't going to work. Sorry to burst the bubble.
" Libertarianism isn’t a coherent governing strategy
Perhaps it is me, but I just don't feel the overwhelming need to be governed.
Obeying the Constitution won't work?
He gives the rhinos and democrats the heebie-jeebies. i'd vote for him on that much alone.
Seriously though, I need to see his website and read more on him before throwing my support and $$ behind his campaign.
I reiterate: ANYONEBUTJEB2016!
I so hope they don't pull some Thad Cochran style dirty tricks and force Jeb upon the party.
View Comments (21)
Senator Paul gives the RINOs as much heart burn as Cruz does. He's not afraid to take on the hildabeast calling out her lies and deeds. The long knives are out for Paul, Walker and Cruz. That tells me both sides fear them. Good!!! None of the three line up on all the subjects that I find important. Yet they are far closer to what this country was founded on then Bush or any of the other blue blood RINOs
And so the idiots in the Main Stream media begin their racist bullshit.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/07/mainstream-reporters-mock-rand-paul-campaign-before-launch/
The McConnell endorsement was a mistake, but his willingness to compromise on amnesty is a deal killer for me.
That's too bad really because I like his willingness to take on the stupidity of the "war on drugs" and his being against being the world police militarily.
Still, I could see him being a good influence in a Cruz cabinet.
I was disappointed by the McConnell endorsement. The amnesty compromise was not surprising, the majority of libertarians are for open borders. I myself would be all for them if we had a free market and a government that respected the absolute sanctity of private property. However as we live in a welfare state and they are currently importing net consumers of resources that will vote to take away even more resources from the producers I have big issues with it as it stands now.
This is indicative of a problem for Rand -IMHO. He is clearly going to alienate the neo-cons. But how does he court the libertarian leaners without alienating the social conservatives and vice versa. Cruz faces this, but to a far lesser extent. Republicans have a proven history of winning with evangelicals on their side, and he seems quite capable of exciting them more than anybody else out there.
This is how I define libertarians in a nutshell: 1) fiscally conservative, 2) politacally and diplomatically noninterventionist and basically neutral, and 3) socially liberal and maybe even progressive. That smacks of pale pastel to me! I'd much rather vote for the dark horse, with long odds, merely because it draws a stark distinction to its competition. Give me a Ted Cruz all day long. Love him or hate him, you know where he stands on the issues!
@hisham
I see how the social aspect might appear that way, but it might be helpful to think of the degree of libertarianism in terms of something that is simply opposed to aggression (although certainly not self defense) as a method of coercion. That is why libertarians seem to fill the spectrum. For example:
Drug policy- libertarians oppose aggression to coerce people to not do drugs. So in that instance they appear to be liberal.
Free Speech policy- Libertarians oppose aggression to coerce people into silencing their speech. So in that instance they appear conservative.
Making wedding cakes for ceremonies that are against your religion- Libertarians oppose aggression to coerce people to do not only this, but oppose aggression in coercing anybody to serve anybody anywhere for any reason. So in this instance they appear reactionary.
Yeah, basically, we Libertarians want to take over the world, and leave everyone alone. As for the open borders, you have to look at the overview, not just one aspect of the Libertarian plan. Since there would be no welfare for able bodied people, and the economy would be roaring along in high gear with the lack of over taxation and over regulation, there'd be little need for a huge force to keep illegal aliens out.
@Flashingsctosman
I agree.
As long as there were NO welfare for ANY illegals, I would be willing to reconsider the open borders thing, but I am still not looking forward to the importation of the MS-13 and drug cartel thugs, and we won't even discuss the Muslim extremists.
@PJ49
That is a good point about the gangs and extremists. But I think a lot of that would take care of itself. With a lot less things being illegal the gangs are going to go out of business. Leaving all those resources for the brave men and women in blue to fulfill one of the few legitimate functions of government, that is protecting life and property.
IF, and that's a BIG IF, the Libertarians follow through with their Constitution following, and ease up on the overregulation, then in all likelihood, gun ownership would be much less restricted, and gun owners would be able to shoot the criminals in their neighborhoods, then we could count on the decimation of the gangs and extremists, but without the lifting of these restrictions, I see it as a free for all for the bad guys to take advantage of the lax border security and drug and other regulations.
Meh. He is right, he is a different kind of Republican- while better than BHO or Hilliary, he's not my first pick. Frankly, he and Cruz seem to operate on a different frequency- I can't put my finger on it.
Could "different frequency" mean more conservative values minded and Constitution following?
Maybe it is because Ted Cruz has steadfastly and unwaveringly maintained his core principles and beliefs whereas Rand has evolved toward the center "Establishment" area, a place that Cruz is not welcome and will not go. They are currently ignoring Cruz (at their peril I might add) because they think they can marginalize him, but they cannot because he is busy raising a ton of money ($31 million in one week is a lot of money for a "marginal" candidate) and persuading people to support him. Rand should read this--it's correct.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/13/ted-cruz-is-the-most-underrated-candidate-in-the-2016-field/
No, like a personality disorder- when I watch him I get that odd feeling. You have to be a bit odd to be president, it's an odd job and meglomaniacs have an advantage in this field. BHO, Clinton and Nixon.
The other issue is that Libertarianism isn't a coherent governing strategy. It all sounds great, but replacing something with nothing isn't going to work. Sorry to burst the bubble.
" Libertarianism isn’t a coherent governing strategy
Perhaps it is me, but I just don't feel the overwhelming need to be governed.
Obeying the Constitution won't work?
He gives the rhinos and democrats the heebie-jeebies. i'd vote for him on that much alone.
Seriously though, I need to see his website and read more on him before throwing my support and $$ behind his campaign.
I reiterate: ANYONEBUTJEB2016!
I so hope they don't pull some Thad Cochran style dirty tricks and force Jeb upon the party.
They'll try and tie his somewhat loopy father Ron to him any way they can. Looks like CNN is already sowing that seed in this barely disguised plant ;http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/06/politics/election-2016-ron-paul-rand-paul-differences/index.html