"The Trouble with Rand Paul"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rand or Ron?

Ron, though I'm sure Rand has made the same deal.

Really? I'm not aware of that. I haven't noticed it anyway.

But if true, it makes sense even if in a strange way. You can't be ENTIRELY combative against the party. You have to at least somewhat play for the team if you want to hang around long enough to make your own impact.

Are you sure though? Ron's endorsed an awful lot of liberty candidates in primaries. None have ever been against GOP incumbents?

I don't believe so.

 

[Synthaholic]

It means that neither of them won their seats as Libertarians. Duh!

Nobody wins their seat as conservatives, liberals, or progressives either, so what's the point?

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

You mean Republican. It was the Republican POTUS Bush who detained suspects indefinitely, created free speech zones, authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, etc., etc. And a Republican-controlled Congress let him do it with nary a peep.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It means that neither of them won their seats as Libertarians. Duh!

Nobody wins their seat as conservatives, liberals, or progressives either, so what's the point?

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

I agree anything he once stood for he just threw away in my opinion.

 

[clevergirl]

Rand Paul is a life long republican. He did exactly what he is expected to do. He himself ran on a Republican ticket and I am certain that some republicans that endorsed him did not share all of his libertarian ideals...

The republican party is made of of many supporters who have varying degrees of differences- thank God.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nobody wins their seat as conservatives, liberals, or progressives either, so what's the point?

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

You mean Republican. It was the Republican POTUS Bush who detained suspects indefinitely, created free speech zones, authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, etc., etc. And a Republican-controlled Congress let him do it with nary a peep.

And now a Democratic POTUS assassinates American citizens and says that due process guaranteed by the Constitution is not the same thing as "judicial process."

 

[Desperado]

Rand Paul sold his soul big time. To support Romney while his father is still in the race show at best a poor sense of timing, at worst a total disregard for his father's values. This changes my view on Rand Paul.

 

[clevergirl]

What really gripes Libertarians is that when he ran for the US Senate, “many of his fund-raising appeals were sent to the donors and supporters of his father…. designed to convince Ron’s supporters that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. That Rand was, like his legendary father, a steadfast champion of liberty.”

Although he’s no longer actively campaigning, Ron Paul emailed supporters this week acknowledging that he won’t have enough delegates to win the nomination. But he has yet to formally pull out of the race, and he still wants to have a presence at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla., in August – perhaps as a featured speaker or influencing the party's platform. That’s why he continues to gather whatever delegates he can.

Although some of his ardent supporters hold out the possibility of a miracle in Tampa, Rep. Paul has told them to behave there, and he reportedly has a friendly personal relationship with Romney.

So for both Pauls, it makes sense that at some point, Rand Paul was going to have to ease toward the party establishment regarding the presidential race – whether or not his father ever endorses Romney.

Here’s how Sen. Paul put his Romney endorsement on Fox News the other night: “You know, my first choice had always been my father. I campaigned for him when I was 11 years old. He's still my first pick. But you know, now that the nominating process is over, I'm happy to announce that I'm going to be supporting Governor Romney.”

It makes a lot of sense politically.

Why did Rand Paul forsake his dad Ron Paul for Mitt Romney? - CSMonitor.com

 

[Synthaholic]

Nobody wins their seat as conservatives, liberals, or progressives either, so what's the point?

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

Well I think we can safely conclude that Rand is not a libertarian, given his vote on sanctions against Iran, so that point is essentially moot now.

Regardless, Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, in 2008, not the Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr. However, Rand and Ron are not the same person. Ron is a member of the Republican Party, but he's not afraid to buck the party and essentially do whatever he wants. Though he has endorsed some objectionable establishment Republicans in the course of his career as well, it should be pointed out. Rand Paul thinks being a "team player" with the Republican Party will benefit his political future, thus he endorsed the Republican nominee for President.

That's because Bob Barr is no Libertarian, no matter how well he parrots the ideology. He's a wingnut Republican, who was one of the impeachment managers in the House. Ron Paul voted for impeachment, but for a different reason: for being a warmonger.

Funny how he lost his principles when it came to Bush/Cheney.

 

[dblack]

It makes a lot of sense politically.

Why did Rand Paul forsake his dad Ron Paul for Mitt Romney? - CSMonitor.com

Sure. This video makes the strongest case yet for his endorsement:

Why Rand Was Right to Endorse Romney - YouTube

Regardless, the 'secret sauce' of the Ron Paul Revolution is that it wasn't about playing politics. I have a hard time seeing the true-believers getting behind a candidate willing to play these kinds of games.

 

[Synthaholic]

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

You mean Republican. It was the Republican POTUS Bush who detained suspects indefinitely, created free speech zones, authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, etc., etc. And a Republican-controlled Congress let him do it with nary a peep.

And now a Democratic POTUS assassinates American citizens and says that due process guaranteed by the Constitution is not the same thing as "judicial process."

Don't bring that weak shit, Kevin. That's just deflection from what I pointed out about the actions and policies of Bush and the Republican Congress. Yes, Obama has continued a lot of those policies. Some, like GTMO, he was forced to continue - again, by the Republicans in Congress. Some, like torture, he has stopped.

As for the American-born terrorist, you could argue that he was wrongly targeted for assassination. Or you could argue that anyone who commits treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process. But that's one singular event. Where was this Tea Party when Bush was regularly violating the liberties that Libertarians claim to love? I don't remember Libertarians or teabaggers holding rallies to protest 'free speech zones' during the 2004 GOP convention. Do you? I mean, think about that: a small zone set up where you can protest and exercise your Constitutional rights. In America? And not a PEEP from the Libertarians or the future teabaggers - because it was happening to Democrats and Liberals. So they didn't give a shit.

You can't be a Constitutionalist for just the people you agree with politically.

 

[Synthaholic]

Rand Paul sold his soul big time. To support Romney while his father is still in the race show at best a poor sense of timing, at worst a total disregard for his father's values. This changes my view on Rand Paul.

Rand Paul is and was not qualified to be a United States Senator. He doesn't have his father's grasp of the Constitution, or anywhere near his father's smarts.

He was elected strictly on his father's name, just like Dubya, Just like Jeb, just like Gore, just like Jesse Jackson, Jr.

 

[Reptilian]

Rand Paul was a disaster waiting to happen

 

[Paulie]

You mean Republican. It was the Republican POTUS Bush who detained suspects indefinitely, created free speech zones, authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, etc., etc. And a Republican-controlled Congress let him do it with nary a peep.

And now a Democratic POTUS assassinates American citizens and says that due process guaranteed by the Constitution is not the same thing as "judicial process."

Don't bring that weak shit, Kevin. That's just deflection from what I pointed out about the actions and policies of Bush and the Republican Congress. Yes, Obama has continued a lot of those policies. Some, like GTMO, he was forced to continue - again, by the Republicans in Congress. Some, like torture, he has stopped.

As for the American-born terrorist, you could argue that he was wrongly targeted for assassination. Or you could argue that anyone who commits treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process. But that's one singular event. Where was this Tea Party when Bush was regularly violating the liberties that Libertarians claim to love? I don't remember Libertarians or teabaggers holding rallies to protest 'free speech zones' during the 2004 GOP convention. Do you? I mean, think about that: a small zone set up where you can protest and exercise your Constitutional rights. In America? And not a PEEP from the Libertarians or the future teabaggers - because it was happening to Democrats and Liberals. So they didn't give a shit.

You can't be a Constitutionalist for just the people you agree with politically.

A couple points:

We can never be entirely sure any torture has stopped. You really think the CIA isn't going to rough someone up for some info just because a new president comes in and makes a statement about it? Most of that shit is done despite anything the president wants. It's done in secret in some room somewhere in some house they requisitioned in some foreign country, where only the agents involved know anything about what's going on there.

As far as Awlak and "Or you could argue that anyone who commits treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process" ... How do we determine he's even done such a thing without his day in court with evidence presented?

Somehow the idea that it's terrorism is blinding people to the fact that regardless what kind of crime it is, it's a US citizen allegedly committing it and until the evidence is heard in court and a jury makes a decision, they are innocent. If we allow the government to just SAY someone did something, then what's the point of the justice system? An accusation is just an accusation. One of the greatest things about being a US citizen is that we're not assumed guilty and sentenced without having the opportunity to defend ourselves against the state.

And as far as protests from the right during Bush, it was ONLY the libertarians protesting. We were having tea party events as early as 2007 to protest the spending and taxation and the affronts to liberty.

It's what the Ron Paul movement was all about.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You mean Republican. It was the Republican POTUS Bush who detained suspects indefinitely, created free speech zones, authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, etc., etc. And a Republican-controlled Congress let him do it with nary a peep.

And now a Democratic POTUS assassinates American citizens and says that due process guaranteed by the Constitution is not the same thing as "judicial process."

Don't bring that weak shit, Kevin. That's just deflection from what I pointed out about the actions and policies of Bush and the Republican Congress. Yes, Obama has continued a lot of those policies. Some, like GTMO, he was forced to continue - again, by the Republicans in Congress. Some, like torture, he has stopped.

As for the American-born terrorist, you could argue that he was wrongly targeted for assassination. Or you could argue that anyone who commits treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process. But that's one singular event. Where was this Tea Party when Bush was regularly violating the liberties that Libertarians claim to love? I don't remember Libertarians or teabaggers holding rallies to protest 'free speech zones' during the 2004 GOP convention. Do you? I mean, think about that: a small zone set up where you can protest and exercise your Constitutional rights. In America? And not a PEEP from the Libertarians or the future teabaggers - because it was happening to Democrats and Liberals. So they didn't give a shit.

You can't be a Constitutionalist for just the people you agree with politically.

How is it weak or a deflection? You pointed out that Bush did horrible things, and I pointed out that Obama has taken those horrible Bush policies and expanded them. That's only weak or a deflection to a partisan.

As for whether someone who commits "treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process," that merely begs the question. How do we decide who has committed treason or whether they've actually incited violence against America? The President can't unilaterally make that decision, and that's why we have due process in the first place.

As for libertarians not speaking out against Bush, that's a load of crap.

George W. Bush: War Criminal in Chief by Laurence M. Vance
In Seeking War, George W. Bush Held True to Form by Robert Higgs
Sean Hannity Ignores Eight Years of George W. Bush « LewRockwell.com Blog
Bush's War on the Bill of Rights by Anthony Gregory
Baby Bush: The Worst President in History? by Doug Casey

 

[Synthaholic]

And now a Democratic POTUS assassinates American citizens and says that due process guaranteed by the Constitution is not the same thing as "judicial process."

Don't bring that weak shit, Kevin. That's just deflection from what I pointed out about the actions and policies of Bush and the Republican Congress. Yes, Obama has continued a lot of those policies. Some, like GTMO, he was forced to continue - again, by the Republicans in Congress. Some, like torture, he has stopped.

As for the American-born terrorist, you could argue that he was wrongly targeted for assassination. Or you could argue that anyone who commits treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process. But that's one singular event. Where was this Tea Party when Bush was regularly violating the liberties that Libertarians claim to love? I don't remember Libertarians or teabaggers holding rallies to protest 'free speech zones' during the 2004 GOP convention. Do you? I mean, think about that: a small zone set up where you can protest and exercise your Constitutional rights. In America? And not a PEEP from the Libertarians or the future teabaggers - because it was happening to Democrats and Liberals. So they didn't give a shit.

You can't be a Constitutionalist for just the people you agree with politically.

A couple points:

We can never be entirely sure any torture has stopped. You really think the CIA isn't going to rough someone up for some info just because a new president comes in and makes a statement about it? Most of that shit is done despite anything the president wants. It's done in secret in some room somewhere in some house they requisitioned in some foreign country, where only the agents involved know anything about what's going on there.

The point is whether torture is a policy or not. Of course you are going to have cowboys in the CIA and military who disregard the law and their orders. You'll never change that.

And since we are constantly being told by the Right that the people in national security are overwhelmingly Rightwing, I'm sure that it would have leaked by now if Obama was authorizing torture in private while condemning it in public.

As far as Awlak and "Or you could argue that anyone who commits treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process" ... How do we determine he's even done such a thing without his day in court with evidence presented?

Somehow the idea that it's terrorism is blinding people to the fact that regardless what kind of crime it is, it's a US citizen allegedly committing it and until the evidence is heard in court and a jury makes a decision, they are innocent. If we allow the government to just SAY someone did something, then what's the point of the justice system? An accusation is just an accusation. One of the greatest things about being a US citizen is that we're not assumed guilty and sentenced without having the opportunity to defend ourselves against the state.

Well, let me ask you this: if the CIA's intel was that an American overseas was in possession of a dirty nuke that he was hours away from setting off in some U.S. territory and a SEAL team was able to take him out, but not able to apprehend him alive, should they do it? Or does his due process rights trump the Constitutional rights of those endangered Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

If you don't like that scenario, I'm sure you could come up with a better one. But the situation remains: in extraordinary situations, we have an elected official - the President Of The United States - whom we have entrusted to keep America safe and who is charged with making these dangerous, complicated decisions.

And as far as protests from the right during Bush, it was ONLY the libertarians protesting. We were having tea party events as early as 2007 to protest the spending and taxation and the affronts to liberty.

It's what the Ron Paul movement was all about.

Dr. Paul was for Libertarianism before he was against it, and I don't remember him holding any press conferences to denounce the administration during the 2004 GOP convention. Perhaps you can find evidence that he did. All I remember from the LPs and anti-gummint-types at the time was either crickets, or collective laughing about how Bush corralled all those evil Libruls into a small area blocks from the convention hall.

 

[Synthaholic]

And now a Democratic POTUS assassinates American citizens and says that due process guaranteed by the Constitution is not the same thing as "judicial process."

Don't bring that weak shit, Kevin. That's just deflection from what I pointed out about the actions and policies of Bush and the Republican Congress. Yes, Obama has continued a lot of those policies. Some, like GTMO, he was forced to continue - again, by the Republicans in Congress. Some, like torture, he has stopped.

As for the American-born terrorist, you could argue that he was wrongly targeted for assassination. Or you could argue that anyone who commits treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process. But that's one singular event. Where was this Tea Party when Bush was regularly violating the liberties that Libertarians claim to love? I don't remember Libertarians or teabaggers holding rallies to protest 'free speech zones' during the 2004 GOP convention. Do you? I mean, think about that: a small zone set up where you can protest and exercise your Constitutional rights. In America? And not a PEEP from the Libertarians or the future teabaggers - because it was happening to Democrats and Liberals. So they didn't give a shit.

You can't be a Constitutionalist for just the people you agree with politically.

How is it weak or a deflection? You pointed out that Bush did horrible things, and I pointed out that Obama has taken those horrible Bush policies and expanded them. That's only weak or a deflection to a partisan.

As for whether someone who commits "treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process," that merely begs the question. How do we decide who has committed treason or whether they've actually incited violence against America? The President can't unilaterally make that decision, and that's why we have due process in the first place.

As for libertarians not speaking out against Bush, that's a load of crap.

George W. Bush: War Criminal in Chief by Laurence M. Vance
In Seeking War, George W. Bush Held True to Form by Robert Higgs
Sean Hannity Ignores Eight Years of George W. Bush « LewRockwell.com Blog
Bush's War on the Bill of Rights by Anthony Gregory
Baby Bush: The Worst President in History? by Doug Casey

Congratulations on showing that Lew Rockwell is a true Libertarian. All those links are from his site.

One writer/pundit true believer does not equal the massive astroturfed movement we saw erupt only when we elected our first Black POTUS.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Don't bring that weak shit, Kevin. That's just deflection from what I pointed out about the actions and policies of Bush and the Republican Congress. Yes, Obama has continued a lot of those policies. Some, like GTMO, he was forced to continue - again, by the Republicans in Congress. Some, like torture, he has stopped.

As for the American-born terrorist, you could argue that he was wrongly targeted for assassination. Or you could argue that anyone who commits treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process. But that's one singular event. Where was this Tea Party when Bush was regularly violating the liberties that Libertarians claim to love? I don't remember Libertarians or teabaggers holding rallies to protest 'free speech zones' during the 2004 GOP convention. Do you? I mean, think about that: a small zone set up where you can protest and exercise your Constitutional rights. In America? And not a PEEP from the Libertarians or the future teabaggers - because it was happening to Democrats and Liberals. So they didn't give a shit.

You can't be a Constitutionalist for just the people you agree with politically.

How is it weak or a deflection? You pointed out that Bush did horrible things, and I pointed out that Obama has taken those horrible Bush policies and expanded them. That's only weak or a deflection to a partisan.

As for whether someone who commits "treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process," that merely begs the question. How do we decide who has committed treason or whether they've actually incited violence against America? The President can't unilaterally make that decision, and that's why we have due process in the first place.

As for libertarians not speaking out against Bush, that's a load of crap.

George W. Bush: War Criminal in Chief by Laurence M. Vance
In Seeking War, George W. Bush Held True to Form by Robert Higgs
Sean Hannity Ignores Eight Years of George W. Bush « LewRockwell.com Blog
Bush's War on the Bill of Rights by Anthony Gregory
Baby Bush: The Worst President in History? by Doug Casey

Congratulations on showing that Lew Rockwell is a true Libertarian. All those links are from his site.

One writer/pundit true believer does not equal the massive astroturfed movement we saw erupt only when we elected our first Black POTUS.

All from one website yes, but I detect at least four different libertarian authors there. Regardless, your assertion that libertarians in general did not oppose Bush is ridiculous.

As for the "astroturfed movement" when Obama became President, you don't have to tell me. It was natural that partisans would suddenly come out of the woodwork to oppose the new President, just as the same thing happened to Bush when he was elected.

Oh, and as for your assertions that Obama doesn't authorize torture, you're wrong. It's called rendition, and Obama has been allowing it since he became President.

 

[thanatos144]

Having limited federal government is not wanting to have a utopia

No its not....Its the whole Anarchy thing that you want with it. Also it is the fact that most actually believe that America is the cause to wars around the world and insane asshole like Usama were just misunderstood guys that had to attack us.

Dude wake the fuck up libertarians are not Anarchist. There is nothing against the libertarians belief in a strong state level government. It's the big federal government that they have a problem with.

No law is anarchy. I dont see anywhere in their platform do they endorse ANY laws.

 

[Synthaholic]

How is it weak or a deflection? You pointed out that Bush did horrible things, and I pointed out that Obama has taken those horrible Bush policies and expanded them. That's only weak or a deflection to a partisan.

As for whether someone who commits "treason and incites violence against America has abdicated his rights to due process," that merely begs the question. How do we decide who has committed treason or whether they've actually incited violence against America? The President can't unilaterally make that decision, and that's why we have due process in the first place.

As for libertarians not speaking out against Bush, that's a load of crap.

George W. Bush: War Criminal in Chief by Laurence M. Vance
In Seeking War, George W. Bush Held True to Form by Robert Higgs
Sean Hannity Ignores Eight Years of George W. Bush « LewRockwell.com Blog
Bush's War on the Bill of Rights by Anthony Gregory
Baby Bush: The Worst President in History? by Doug Casey

Congratulations on showing that Lew Rockwell is a true Libertarian. All those links are from his site.

One writer/pundit true believer does not equal the massive astroturfed movement we saw erupt only when we elected our first Black POTUS.

All from one website yes, but I detect at least four different libertarian authors there. Regardless, your assertion that libertarians in general did not oppose Bush is ridiculous.

As for the "astroturfed movement" when Obama became President, you don't have to tell me. It was natural that partisans would suddenly come out of the woodwork to oppose the new President, just as the same thing happened to Bush when he was elected.

Oh, and as for your assertions that Obama doesn't authorize torture, you're wrong. It's called rendition, and Obama has been allowing it since he became President.

Rendition is sending people to torture-friendly countries.

That is not the same as torture at the hands of Americans.

A minor distinction, if you are the one being tortured, but it complies with U.S. law, at least.

Personally, I think it's more effective to kill them with kindness.

 

[thanatos144]

Any one who knows me knows I hate utopian bullshit on both sides and that definitely includes libertarianism. Nothing wrong with striving to be a better country but to watch it burn cause you cant stand not having legal pot or abortion on demand to me is fucking insane. What I think Rand is doing is something His father doesn't have the backbone for. He is sucking it up and endorsing the candidate of his party cause he KNOWS he is better then the president. At a certain point you need to ask yourself if your going to be a liberal bitch and throw a tantrum cause you didn't get your way or are you going to put the country forward and work harder to get more your views accomplished other ways.....You want to help put a leash on Romney if and when he wins???????Elect a better congress cause right now you ether have Obama or Romney as president and only a fucking madman votes for Obama or doesn't vote at all.

I am sure you like to believe there is not wasted votes but Perot taught us differently.