Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll

[M.D. Rawlings]

CPAC has tended to draw a younger more libertarian-leaning crowd for the past several years, and that certainly explains why Rand won so comfortably. Whether that translates into votes from older, more traditional Republicans on a national scale remains to be seen. It seems safe to say he'll be far more successful than his father regardless.

Which would be consistent with the reactionary naïveté common among most libertarians.

Reactionary? LOL.

Aren't you late for your local communist party meeting, comrade?

Jones is never late; he's the local chairman. The meetings can't start without him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm what would best be described as a conservative-libertarian, so I'm not a libertarian purist. Neither were the very best of our Founding Fathers. Notwithstanding, I would that the members of the Libertarian Party dissolve the latter and join the Republican Party. Let's stop splitting the vote for liberty and push the pseudo-conservative, right-of-center statists out!

Why would libertarians want to join the Republican Party when you don't represent us and actively tell us to stay out?

Whose you? The Republican Party imperfectly represents my political philosophy, but it's the best game changer in town. Let's face it, a vote cast for a Libertarian Party candidate is a wasted vote, one that splits the liberty platform shared by libertarians and conservative constitutionalists. The vast majority of the base of the Republican Party would happily have you so that together we might change the Republican Party and drive the corrupt establishment out.

That's my point.

Instead of splitting the vote, unite it. It's simpler and more effective to do it that way rather than rally around the comparatively paltry apparatus of the Libertarian Party.

That's not a slight against your Party or your ideology. I don't care about party labels in and of themselves. Ideology is what matters. I want to defeat statism.

Tactics!

Can you give us an example of a Republican libertarians ought to support then?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the Republicans ever want to win a presidential election again they better get used to Libertarians like Rand Paul as opposed to the McCains and Huckabees of the party.

A Libertarian can never win nationally. They're too nutty.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If your expectation is all or nothing then you can expect to get nothing every time.

I don't expect all or nothing, but there are some issues I won't compromise on. I linked to a tweet he sent out earlier that any libertarian worth their salt would find highly objectionable, and here's an interesting bit from an interview he did earlier.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Rand Paul: My Foreign Policy Is In Line with George Bush the First

I don't recall ever reading about how H.W.'s foreign policy was in any way libertarian, so I don't see what there is to support there.

Hello, Kevin. May I ask what those issues are relative to your positions?

Thanks.

Well, for starters, he's talking about "containing" Russia. What does that mean, and why should the U.S. government be involved in doing it? I'm a non-interventionist so I don't see that containing Russia is in line with non-interventionism, and H.W. was certainly no non-interventionist so that's no good. He also voted for sanctions against Iran despite the fact that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At one point he supported keeping Guantanamo Bay Prison open and continuing the policy of indefinite detention. He seems to have backed off that a little bit recently, but his current views on the issue aren't clear.

These are some of my objections.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If the Republicans ever want to win a presidential election again they better get used to Libertarians like Rand Paul as opposed to the McCains and Huckabees of the party.

A Libertarian can never win nationally. They're too nutty.

As opposed to the "electable" John McCains and Mitt Romneys of the world.

 

[Contumacious]

I like him better than his pops, but that ain't saying much.

I like his pops a lot more.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the Republicans ever want to win a presidential election again they better get used to Libertarians like Rand Paul as opposed to the McCains and Huckabees of the party.

A Libertarian can never win nationally. They're too nutty.

As opposed to the "electable" John McCains and Mitt Romneys of the world.

In comparison, they were winners.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I don't expect all or nothing, but there are some issues I won't compromise on. I linked to a tweet he sent out earlier that any libertarian worth their salt would find highly objectionable, and here's an interesting bit from an interview he did earlier.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Rand Paul: My Foreign Policy Is In Line with George Bush the First

I don't recall ever reading about how H.W.'s foreign policy was in any way libertarian, so I don't see what there is to support there.

Hello, Kevin. May I ask what those issues are relative to your positions?

Thanks.

Well, for starters, he's talking about "containing" Russia. What does that mean, and why should the U.S. government be involved in doing it? I'm a non-interventionist so I don't see that containing Russia is in line with non-interventionism, and H.W. was certainly no non-interventionist so that's no good. He also voted for sanctions against Iran despite the fact that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At one point he supported keeping Guantanamo Bay Prison open and continuing the policy of indefinite detention. He seems to have backed off that a little bit recently, but his current views on the issue aren't clear.

These are some of my objections.

What YOU perceive Irans nuclear intentions and what they actually are may very well be polar opposites. I'm sure Rand has a bit more info on that subject than any of us.

Russia needs to be isolated least we have another rogue nation leading the world down a path we don't need to go down.

As to GITMO shall we put the terrorists in your spare bedroom?


You seem very much to be an isolationist. Based on that it's unlikely that we will see eye to eye on any foreign issues.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A Libertarian can never win nationally. They're too nutty.

As opposed to the "electable" John McCains and Mitt Romneys of the world.

In comparison, they were winners.

What did they win? Nothing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

As opposed to the "electable" John McCains and Mitt Romneys of the world.

In comparison, they were winners.

What did they win? Nothing.

When compared with what he can do, they were very successful.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

McCain & Romney were bad candidates much like Ron Paul would have been. McCain & Romney wouldn't have been much better than Obama. Paul would have been but his International positions would have left us vulnerable imo

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In comparison, they were winners.

What did they win? Nothing.

When compared with what he can do, they were very successful.

Nonsense

They just wouldn't have interfered with your government handouts as much.

 

[Paulie]

I supported his father, and will not be supporting him. I think you'll find there are many like me. Maybe not a majority, but a good deal nonetheless.

The boy is but a pale reflection of the father, and, from his past public statements, too comfortable with the state.

For example:

"We will isolate Russia if they continue to act like a rogue nation."

https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/442650171177172992

I don't see a problem with this. Depending on what exactly "isolate" means in this case. Assuming it means cutting ties, halting trade, etc, then I don't have a problem with that. It's plenty libertarian to simply say to a nation that we will not associate with you if you keep up the crap.

Much different from threatening force.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hello, Kevin. May I ask what those issues are relative to your positions?

Thanks.

Well, for starters, he's talking about "containing" Russia. What does that mean, and why should the U.S. government be involved in doing it? I'm a non-interventionist so I don't see that containing Russia is in line with non-interventionism, and H.W. was certainly no non-interventionist so that's no good. He also voted for sanctions against Iran despite the fact that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At one point he supported keeping Guantanamo Bay Prison open and continuing the policy of indefinite detention. He seems to have backed off that a little bit recently, but his current views on the issue aren't clear.

These are some of my objections.

What YOU perceive Irans nuclear intentions and what they actually are may very well be polar opposites. I'm sure Rand has a bit more info on that subject than any of us.

Russia needs to be isolated least we have another rogue nation leading the world down a path we don't need to go down.

As to GITMO shall we put the terrorists in your spare bedroom?


You seem very much to be an isolationist. Based on that it's unlikely that we will see eye to eye on any foreign issues.

Isolationist is just the epithet used to try to smear non-interventionists, but you can use it if you want.

Yes, the ever convenient argument about politicians having more information than the rest of us. That simply allows them to say whatever they want without backing it up with any actual evidence. If you're going to go after a group of people, however, I'm going to require a bit more than just your word.

How has Russia behaved in a "roguish" fashion? By possibly having sent troops into an area where they are known to have troops regardless? Do I support Russia's involvement in the Ukraine? No, but if the people of Crimea would rather be a part of Russia than the new neo-Nazi government out of Kiev then I don't much blame them, frankly. I also don't see that it's any of the U.S. government's business. Speaking of which, was it "roguish" behavior of the U.S. government to openly undermine the democratically elected government in favor of the rebels that are now in power? What would happen if Russia sent politicians to support some of the militias in the U.S. that want to overthrow the U.S. government I wonder?

As for GITMO, I suggest that we let them go wherever they want. If they can be convicted of something then I'm all for it, but those who can't should be freed immediately. They're not all terrorists.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What did they win? Nothing.

When compared with what he can do, they were very successful.

Nonsense

They just wouldn't have interfered with your government handouts as much.

I don't get any handouts little friend. And you are welcome to run another loser again. It's no skin off of my nose.

 

[DriftingSand]

Excellent!!! The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Ron Paul has instilled a very important ideology in Rand. One based on the tenets of our founding fathers. I'm certain he would make a very good President who truly cares about America. Screw the Globalists! Let's get our nation back on track.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

McCain & Romney were bad candidates much like Ron Paul would have been. McCain & Romney wouldn't have been much better than Obama. Paul would have been but his International positions would have left us vulnerable imo

Even if a ‘libertarian’ were to become president, there’d be no change in our foreign policy or doctrine of international militarism – no troops would be coming home from South Korea or Germany.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In comparison, they were winners.

What did they win? Nothing.

When compared with what he can do, they were very successful.

Who's "he?" Rand Paul? And, again, what were they successful at? They might as well have stayed home. Actually, they might have done better if they had.

 

[Paulie]

I don't expect all or nothing, but there are some issues I won't compromise on. I linked to a tweet he sent out earlier that any libertarian worth their salt would find highly objectionable, and here's an interesting bit from an interview he did earlier.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Rand Paul: My Foreign Policy Is In Line with George Bush the First

I don't recall ever reading about how H.W.'s foreign policy was in any way libertarian, so I don't see what there is to support there.

Hello, Kevin. May I ask what those issues are relative to your positions?

Thanks.

Well, for starters, he's talking about "containing" Russia. What does that mean, and why should the U.S. government be involved in doing it? I'm a non-interventionist so I don't see that containing Russia is in line with non-interventionism, and H.W. was certainly no non-interventionist so that's no good. He also voted for sanctions against Iran despite the fact that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At one point he supported keeping Guantanamo Bay Prison open and continuing the policy of indefinite detention. He seems to have backed off that a little bit recently, but his current views on the issue aren't clear.

These are some of my objections.

But he didn't say contain, he said isolate. Let's not put words in his mouth. Ron was constantly accused of being an isolationist, which was simply a confusion with non-interventionist...both of which are at least understandably similar at least in a certain way of looking at it. So that being the case, what is so wrong with isolating a country? Trade with all nations, alliances with none...right? But we are certainly free to cease trading and cut any ties at all if we feel a nation is causing problems.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The boy is but a pale reflection of the father, and, from his past public statements, too comfortable with the state.

For example:

"We will isolate Russia if they continue to act like a rogue nation."

https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/442650171177172992

I don't see a problem with this. Depending on what exactly "isolate" means in this case. Assuming it means cutting ties, halting trade, etc, then I don't have a problem with that. It's plenty libertarian to simply say to a nation that we will not associate with you if you keep up the crap.

Much different from threatening force.

That's the problem with Rand though, he keeps things as vague as possible. This was obviously more forceful because people, such as Ted Cruz, are attacking his foreign policy positions at the moment, so he wants to come off as strong. But he can play it just like you said when he's in front of a more libertarian audience.