PDA

View Full Version : I had a long talk with Brannon today...




lib3rtarian
01-18-2014, 09:16 PM
This was after the Raleigh HQ grand opening, and after all the guests had left, I stayed behind and had the great privilege to have a rare 1:1 talk with Brannon for about 40-45 mins. Just me and him. I just wanted to say that he is everything we wanted him to be. We discussed a number of topics dear to us RFP'ers. I am talking WoD, warfare, Iran, you name it.., and without giving too much away (because I don't want it to be used against him and because it was a private discussion), I might as well have been talking to RP himself.

Although there was no one around, for no reason, we often were talking in whispers. I got a lot of insight into the inner workings and politics of the campaign and I found that it's not all black and white like we often think it is.

The reason I am posting this here is because there have been negative threads here about him accusing him of being a neocon, Santorum-type etc., and after talking at length with him, I can wholeheartedly assure you that he is not. If it's possible at all, trust me on this.

Please help him win. He is the real deal. Thank you.

(If you have specific questions, please PM me. If you are a regular here, I'll speak to you more freely then.)

matt0611
01-18-2014, 09:47 PM
Thanks for posting this. I'm really excited about this guy. Tom Woods had a long talk with him too. He even attends his Liberty Classroom classes.

How's his campaign going?

Kotin
01-18-2014, 09:48 PM
Thanks for posting!

aclove
01-18-2014, 10:00 PM
Thanks for posting this. I'm really excited about this guy. Tom Woods had a long talk with him too. He even attends his Liberty Classroom classes.

How's his campaign going?

Campaign is going very well. He's opening 4 campaign offices around North Carolina this weekend, and held a Campaign Boot Camp for his volunteer coordinators about a week ago. He has a large, committed network of boots-on-the-ground activists that none of the other non-establishment candidates have.

That being said, his biggest handicap is a fundraising disadvantage. The establishment candidate, NC House Speaker Thom Tillis, is being actively and openly supported by Boehner, Karl Rove, and the NRCC. They've dumped huge amounts of money on him, and he's currently running ads statewide with a $300,000 ad buy. It's made a difference; in December, Brannon was actually polling ahead of Tillis by a point. As of last week, Tillis has pulled 8 points ahead. The only thing that's changed is the television ad.

As near as I can tell, Brannon has raised enough money for a top-notch website, an experienced and capable staff, multiple campaign offices, and a direct-mail fundraising operation being run by Saber Communications (the same people that run direct mail for Ron, Rand, and Campaign for Liberty). That's brought in a lot, but not enough to run television ads. Without those, I don't know that Brannon can pull it off.

He needs probably about twice the money he's raising right now, and support from FreedomWorks, the Senate Conservatives Fund, and Club for Growth. If he gets the resources he needs, I think he can wipe the floor with Tillis, who has refused to appear at ANY candidate forum or debate, and has a reputation for blocking or watering down bills that are important to conservatives in NC.

If Brannon can run enough ads to raise his name recognition to be on part with Tillis, Tillis' negatives with grassroots activists will sink him.

aclove
01-18-2014, 10:08 PM
Some recent Brannon campaign pictures

Southern Wake Campaign office opening:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/995631_729518543725811_1677554691_n.jpg


Winston-Salem Campaign office opening
https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1521772_729113203766345_2083821295_n.jpg

Grassroots Bootcamp
https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1459065_725965460747786_589995630_n.jpg

Brian4Liberty
01-18-2014, 11:32 PM
This was after the Raleigh HQ grand opening, and after all the guests had left, I stayed behind and had the great privilege to have a rare 1:1 talk with Brannon for about 40-45 mins. Just me and him. I just wanted to say that he is everything we wanted him to be. We discussed a number of topics dear to us RFP'ers. I am talking WoD, warfare, Iran, you name it.., and without giving too much away (because I don't want it to be used against him and because it was a private discussion), I might as well have been talking to RP himself.

Although there was no one around, for no reason, we often were talking in whispers. I got a lot of insight into the inner workings and politics of the campaign and I found that it's not all black and white like we often think it is.

The reason I am posting this here is because there have been negative threads here about him accusing him of being a neocon, Santorum-type etc., and after talking at length with him, I can wholeheartedly assure you that he is not. If it's possible at all, trust me on this.

Please help him win. He is the real deal. Thank you.

(If you have specific questions, please PM me. If you are a regular here, I'll speak to you more freely then.)

Thanks for that insight. Hope you told him that many of us here fully support him. With more information like this, we may do better on the next moneybomb!

Christian Liberty
01-18-2014, 11:33 PM
Thanks for that insight. Hope you told him that many of us here fully support him. With more information like this, we may do better on the next moneybomb!

I just listened to one of Greg's speeches, he really does sound like Ron Paul. Listening to him was extremely enjoyable. Makes me wish I lived in NC so I could vote for him;)

GunnyFreedom
01-18-2014, 11:48 PM
This was after the Raleigh HQ grand opening, and after all the guests had left, I stayed behind and had the great privilege to have a rare 1:1 talk with Brannon for about 40-45 mins. Just me and him. I just wanted to say that he is everything we wanted him to be. We discussed a number of topics dear to us RFP'ers. I am talking WoD, warfare, Iran, you name it.., and without giving too much away (because I don't want it to be used against him and because it was a private discussion), I might as well have been talking to RP himself.

Although there was no one around, for no reason, we often were talking in whispers. I got a lot of insight into the inner workings and politics of the campaign and I found that it's not all black and white like we often think it is.

The reason I am posting this here is because there have been negative threads here about him accusing him of being a neocon, Santorum-type etc., and after talking at length with him, I can wholeheartedly assure you that he is not. If it's possible at all, trust me on this.

Please help him win. He is the real deal. Thank you.

(If you have specific questions, please PM me. If you are a regular here, I'll speak to you more freely then.)

I wouldn't have drafted the man to run for US Senate if he weren't. :) This ain't my first rodeo. He knows the Constitution inside and out, and he means to uphold and defend it.

TaftFan
01-18-2014, 11:50 PM
Thanks for posting this. I'm really excited about this guy. Tom Woods had a long talk with him too. He even attends his Liberty Classroom classes.

How's his campaign going?

Tom Woods doesn't mess around with his endorsements.

Christian Liberty
01-18-2014, 11:51 PM
If I was thrilled with one youtube video, you know you have an excellent candidate:)

Its really, really hard to get me excited about somebody. Greg Brannon did it. Kudos.

lib3rtarian
01-19-2014, 12:06 AM
Hope you told him that many of us here fully support him.

Yes, I mentioned the support on RPF and DP. That's when I mentioned the concerns some of the folks had here. He, in no uncertain terms, assuaged me.

Brian4Liberty
01-19-2014, 12:10 AM
Yes, I mentioned the support on RPF and DP. That's when I mentioned the concerns some of the folks had here. He, in no uncertain terms, assuaged me.

That's great. Good to hear.

Matt Collins
01-19-2014, 12:14 AM
Thanks for posting this. I'm really excited about this guy. Tom Woods had a long talk with him too. He even attends his Liberty Classroom classes.

How's his campaign going?

Tom Woods and Mike Church had dinner with Greg a few months ago. I was there, and the guy managing his campaign also worked on Ron's 2012 Campaign.

Warlord
01-19-2014, 05:25 AM
we NEED to get the outside groups involved. CLUB are alredy spending 6 figures for Amash!

mosquitobite
01-19-2014, 07:22 AM
Man, if we could get Brannon in NC and Davis in SC...

Mr.NoSmile
01-19-2014, 10:41 AM
A thread to reiterate and give a personal account to what many on here already know and believe?

FSP-Rebel
01-19-2014, 11:58 AM
A thread to reiterate and give a personal account to what many on here already know and believe?
Positives are positives and help some people part with their cash easier and more freely. This ongoing boxing themed moneybomb should've been slated to raise funds to drop on an ad to raise his name ID and perhaps it is and it hasn't been made clear. Even if only enough is raised to saturate a big market in NC, we do need to get a leg up in the next poll and drive some media attention for free publicity which is clear they're holding back on. Wish Rand would get his ass to NC and campaign for Greg over a weekend for starters and perhaps coincide w/ another moneybomb. That would be quite a haul imo.

lib3rtarian
01-19-2014, 05:58 PM
A thread to reiterate and give a personal account to what many on here already know and believe?

If you think everybody here were fully behind Brannon 100% before this, then you hadn't been paying attention. By the very nature of libertarians' "all or nothing" attitude, they will cherry-pick 1 issue out of a 100 which they think they disagree with, and then denounce the candidate as "sellout", "neocon" etc. (2 mins of searching will get you those threads.) I don't have a silver bullet for this vexing issue, but my post was a personal plea even if it were to move the needle by a factor of 0.0001%. In this specific case, I discovered that there is nothing about Brannon that RP supporters should disagree with, and I wanted to make it aware to whoever would listen. Does that make sense?

aclove
01-19-2014, 06:47 PM
Of course, this being RPF, you'll next be greeted with the typical derpy, "All politics is aggression! Voting is aggression! The only TRUE path to liberty is agorism!"

Or something equally obstinate.

Occam's Banana
01-19-2014, 07:11 PM
Of course, this being RPF, you'll next be greeted with the typical derpy, "All politics is aggression! Voting is aggression! The only TRUE path to liberty is agorism!"

Or something equally obstinate.

As opposed to what? Being greeted with pre-emptive taunts directed at the people who believe such things?

I am sincerely curious - given that no one in this thread has yet offered the sort of "derpy obstinance" you are complaining about, what is the point of bringing it up? You are essentially inviting those people to retort - and thus increasing the likelihood of the very thing you presumably do not want to happen. How is that constructive? What is the point?

:confused::confused::confused:

Brian4Liberty
01-19-2014, 10:21 PM
I am sincerely curious - given that no one in this thread has yet offered the sort of "derpy obstinance" you are complaining about, what is the point of bringing it up?
...
:confused::confused::confused:

Perhaps he was talking about a different thread.

phill4paul
01-19-2014, 10:27 PM
Perhaps he was talking about the following thread, which was bumped ad nauseam during Brannon's last money
(Please don't bump that thread).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?435101-Why-I-won-t-give-Greg-Brannon-the-time-of-day

Please don't grasp the shiny? It is what it is and I still stand by it.

Funny you should bring it back up though..


This post from another thread should be the final post in this thread.

Let's end this thread.

Occam's Banana
01-20-2014, 12:55 AM
Perhaps he was talking about the following thread, which was bumped ad nauseam during Brannon's last money
(Please don't bump that thread).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?435101-Why-I-won-t-give-Greg-Brannon-the-time-of-day

Then perhaps he should have said it in that thread instead of inviting more of the same into this one.
(Or better yet, perhaps he should have just let it be ...)

My original question remains unanswered: what is the point of stirring shit up if you don't want shit stirred up? :confused:

Brian4Liberty
01-20-2014, 01:03 AM
Then perhaps he should have said it in that thread instead of inviting more of the same into this one.
(Or better yet, perhaps he should have just let it be ...)

My original question remains unanswered: what is the point of stirring shit up if you don't want shit stirred up? :confused:

Yeah. Veiled references should probably have direct links.

Occam's Banana
01-20-2014, 01:48 AM
Yeah. Veiled references should probably have direct links.

They shouldn't even be made at all - unless and until there's a provocation for doing so. No one was bad-mouthing Brannon in this thread (let alone going on about "voting is agression" or whatever). It's just flat-out hypocritical (not to mention pointlessly divisive) to complain about other people bringing that stuff up when the complainer is the only one bringing that stuff up.

Brian4Liberty
01-20-2014, 01:53 AM
They shouldn't even be made at all - unless and until there's a provocation for doing so. No one was bad-mouthing Brannon in this thread (let alone going on about "voting is agression" or whatever). It's just flat-out hypocritical (not to mention pointlessly divisive) to complain about other people bringing that stuff up when the complainer is the only one bringing that stuff up.

Agree. No need to bring up negativity in a positive thread.

Mr.NoSmile
01-20-2014, 09:44 AM
If you think everybody here were fully behind Brannon 100% before this, then you hadn't been paying attention.

Which is why I said many, not all. Come on, keep up.

AuH20
01-21-2014, 12:48 AM
This was after the Raleigh HQ grand opening, and after all the guests had left, I stayed behind and had the great privilege to have a rare 1:1 talk with Brannon for about 40-45 mins. Just me and him. I just wanted to say that he is everything we wanted him to be. We discussed a number of topics dear to us RFP'ers. I am talking WoD, warfare, Iran, you name it.., and without giving too much away (because I don't want it to be used against him and because it was a private discussion), I might as well have been talking to RP himself.

Although there was no one around, for no reason, we often were talking in whispers. I got a lot of insight into the inner workings and politics of the campaign and I found that it's not all black and white like we often think it is.

The reason I am posting this here is because there have been negative threads here about him accusing him of being a neocon, Santorum-type etc., and after talking at length with him, I can wholeheartedly assure you that he is not. If it's possible at all, trust me on this.

Please help him win. He is the real deal. Thank you.

(If you have specific questions, please PM me. If you are a regular here, I'll speak to you more freely then.)

Those people call everyone a Neocon. Nothing new there. :D;)

philipped
01-21-2014, 11:24 AM
I want to know, how libertarian is this guy? on a 1-10. I give Ron a 9, Justin and Thomas an 8, and since Rand has taken the national stage i give him like a 6.5, what would you guys give Brannon?

aclove
01-21-2014, 11:27 AM
I want to know, how libertarian is this guy? on a 1-10. I give Ron a 9, Justin and Thomas an 8, and since Rand has taken the national stage i give him like a 6.5, what would you guys give Brannon?

Let's ask Tom Woods:

http://youtu.be/q8jmo15liro

eduardo89
01-21-2014, 11:32 AM
Man, if we could get Brannon in NC and Davis in SC...

Davis is not running and has shown no interest in going to DC.

lib3rtarian
01-21-2014, 11:48 AM
I want to know, how libertarian is this guy? on a 1-10. I give Ron a 9, Justin and Thomas an 8, and since Rand has taken the national stage i give him like a 6.5, what would you guys give Brannon?

It depends on how you define "libertarian". Is it the Libertarian Party platform? Brannon is religious, rabidly pro-life, does NOT want open borders and his personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman (although he wants the government out of the marriage business altogether). Does this qualify him or disqualify him in your eyes? What is most important is that he wants the Federal government to only perform the enumerated functions (Article I, Section 8) and he is very very particular about this. What does this make him now? Constitutionalist? Libertarian? Conservative? Classical Liberal? Paleo-Conservative? If you strictly follow the constitution, labels don't really matter. The federal government which results when you follow the constitution would be so small to be irrelevant in our lives.

P.S: FYI - currently the term "libertarian" is being used by his opponents to malign Brannon.

asurfaholic
01-21-2014, 12:05 PM
This guy has me excited about 2014. Has Walter jones endorsed him yet?

lib3rtarian
01-21-2014, 12:26 PM
This guy has me excited about 2014. Has Walter jones endorsed him yet?

Not yet, but I think he will.

Bastiat's The Law
01-21-2014, 01:38 PM
Brannon is a strict constructionist which would make him one of the most liberty orientated Senators in modern history.

ctiger2
01-21-2014, 02:42 PM
I want to know, how libertarian is this guy? on a 1-10. I give Ron a 9, Justin and Thomas an 8, and since Rand has taken the national stage i give him like a 6.5, what would you guys give Brannon?

From what I've heard Brannon's a 10. He beats Ron because he knows the constitution inside out and is able to communicate much better than Ron.

ctiger2
01-21-2014, 02:42 PM
Davis is not running and has shown no interest in going to DC.

Maybe he meant Lee Bright. I think he's the one we need in SC.

Mr.NoSmile
01-21-2014, 03:15 PM
Maybe he meant Lee Bright. I think he's the one we need in SC.

...or it's possible that he meant Davis since, for the longest time, there was speculation that he would run- long before we got Cash, Bright and Mace- or just that he wanted him to run the same way people want Ron Paul to run for Governor or Texas even though it won't happen.

Christian Liberty
01-21-2014, 03:28 PM
It depends on how you define "libertarian". Is it the Libertarian Party platform? Brannon is religious, rabidly pro-life, does NOT want open borders and his personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman (although he wants the government out of the marriage business altogether). Does this qualify him or disqualify him in your eyes? What is most important is that he wants the Federal government to only perform the enumerated functions (Article I, Section 8) and he is very very particular about this. What does this make him now? Constitutionalist? Libertarian? Conservative? Classical Liberal? Paleo-Conservative? If you strictly follow the constitution, labels don't really matter. The federal government which results when you follow the constitution would be so small to be irrelevant in our lives.

P.S: FYI - currently the term "libertarian" is being used by his opponents to malign Brannon.

As an ideal I believe in open borders but I get the welfare issue and the issue of immigrants having an impact on elections. To me, the simple answer to this is to allow free immigration with the caveat that people who so immigrate must give up any right to welfare benefits or to vote. I don't really see what's complicated about that, but I've never seen anyone actually suggest my solution either, its always either let people come in and thus have the right to become citizens (Complete with false "rights" to voting and welfare) or to close the borders. Rand Paul, incidentally, probably has the closest stance to mine with the "let the immigrants stay but don't let them cut the green card line" stance, but its still not the same stance as mine. And obviously, ideally I want to eliminate welfare (as would any libertarian) and voting (As would any anarcho-capitalist) but I know you can't do that overnight, I feel like letting immigrants come in but not to be able to use those ultimately non-ideal things is the best step in the right direction.

That said, that's probably too much for your typical Republicans to understand, most of them want to know "Is he for amnesty or is he against" so with that being said I'm OK with him saying "against." I'd also be OK with it if he said "Pro." I have bigger fish to fry, personally, and I honestly forget what exactly Ron Paul said about this issue. I personally agree with Brannon on both abortion and marriage, and I love the fact that Greg brings God into the conversation without using him to defend immoral ideas like the leftists who say Jesus would be "pro-welfare" or conservatives who use their Bibles to support more government control of sexual behavior or other social issues. One thing I've always had to explain to people about Ron Paul is that, while he does personally believe in God and Jesus Christ, he feels like politicians abuse that to their own advantage and that's why he doesn't usually talk about it. With Greg Brannon, I don't have that issue, yet I don't feel like he sacrifices any of his small government principles by doing so either. I don't know that he's "better" than Ron, but he seems on par with him on the issues, and he's a better speaker (I personally don't mind the fact that Ron sometimes rambles, and I do the same thing, but some people are superficial and Brannon is very good at not doing it). With regards to the 1-10 bit, I have a hard time giving anyone who doesn't totally reject the State as a social institution, so I'd give both Ron Paul and Greg Brannon a 9.5, with the caveat that I know more about Ron than I do about Greg. I feel Rand's 6.5 is probably a little too low though, I'd probably go with 7.5, maybe 8.


Those people call everyone a Neocon. Nothing new there. :D;)

You know, I do understand what you were getting at when you distinguished between someone like McCain and someone Ted Cruz on foreign policy, but they're both hawks who frankly do not care all that much about innocent life overseas. They differ in degree, Ted Cruz is far better when it comes to the degree, but on principle their philosophies are the same. Government has a right to take your money and give it to other countries, and government has a right to kill people overseas to further the American agenda. Even if Cruz does not go quite as far with these evil ideas as McCain, I still view him as a neocon of sorts. Maybe that's not the right word, but I don't really care. Both are certainly evil men.

Greg Brannon said "There's no such thing as collateral damage, we're all made in God's image", rejected the idea of isolating Iran through sanctions, and said we shouldn't get involved in any war unless America was threatened. Calling Greg Brannon "neocon" is like calling Ron Paul a neocon. Its not just technically wrong, it doesn't even make sense in any kind of context. If Greg is a neocon I guess I am too:p

jmdrake
01-21-2014, 03:45 PM
I wouldn't have drafted the man to run for US Senate if he weren't. :) This ain't my first rodeo. He knows the Constitution inside and out, and he means to uphold and defend it.

Thank you Gunny!

lib3rtarian
01-21-2014, 04:07 PM
As an ideal I believe in open borders but I get the welfare issue and the issue of immigrants having an impact on elections. To me, the simple answer to this is to allow free immigration with the caveat that people who so immigrate must give up any right to welfare benefits or to vote. I don't really see what's complicated about that, but I've never seen anyone actually suggest my solution either, its always either let people come in and thus have the right to become citizens (Complete with false "rights" to voting and welfare) or to close the borders. Rand Paul, incidentally, probably has the closest stance to mine with the "let the immigrants stay but don't let them cut the green card line" stance, but its still not the same stance as mine. And obviously, ideally I want to eliminate welfare (as would any libertarian) and voting (As would any anarcho-capitalist) but I know you can't do that overnight, I feel like letting immigrants come in but not to be able to use those ultimately non-ideal things is the best step in the right direction.

That said, that's probably too much for your typical Republicans to understand, most of them want to know "Is he for amnesty or is he against" so with that being said I'm OK with him saying "against." I'd also be OK with it if he said "Pro." I have bigger fish to fry, personally, and I honestly forget what exactly Ron Paul said about this issue. I personally agree with Brannon on both abortion and marriage, and I love the fact that Greg brings God into the conversation without using him to defend immoral ideas like the leftists who say Jesus would be "pro-welfare" or conservatives who use their Bibles to support more government control of sexual behavior or other social issues. One thing I've always had to explain to people about Ron Paul is that, while he does personally believe in God and Jesus Christ, he feels like politicians abuse that to their own advantage and that's why he doesn't usually talk about it. With Greg Brannon, I don't have that issue, yet I don't feel like he sacrifices any of his small government principles by doing so either. I don't know that he's "better" than Ron, but he seems on par with him on the issues, and he's a better speaker (I personally don't mind the fact that Ron sometimes rambles, and I do the same thing, but some people are superficial and Brannon is very good at not doing it). With regards to the 1-10 bit, I have a hard time giving anyone who doesn't totally reject the State as a social institution, so I'd give both Ron Paul and Greg Brannon a 9.5, with the caveat that I know more about Ron than I do about Greg. I feel Rand's 6.5 is probably a little too low though, I'd probably go with 7.5, maybe 8.



You know, I do understand what you were getting at when you distinguished between someone like McCain and someone Ted Cruz on foreign policy, but they're both hawks who frankly do not care all that much about innocent life overseas. They differ in degree, Ted Cruz is far better when it comes to the degree, but on principle their philosophies are the same. Government has a right to take your money and give it to other countries, and government has a right to kill people overseas to further the American agenda. Even if Cruz does not go quite as far with these evil ideas as McCain, I still view him as a neocon of sorts. Maybe that's not the right word, but I don't really care. Both are certainly evil men.

Greg Brannon said "There's no such thing as collateral damage, we're all made in God's image", rejected the idea of isolating Iran through sanctions, and said we shouldn't get involved in any war unless America was threatened. Calling Greg Brannon "neocon" is like calling Ron Paul a neocon. Its not just technically wrong, it doesn't even make sense in any kind of context. If Greg is a neocon I guess I am too:p

I am sure Brannon's opposition to open borders is because of the ready-to-exploit welfare system we have. This is my opposition too. I don't really comprehend the LP position on this. If everyone who were to come here would be guaranteed to work and not become a public charge, then I would have less of a problem with open borders. But you can't even suggest this as an alternative lest the liberals come in and accuse everyone of cruelty, racism etc.

I am an atheist, but I can easily coexist with Brannon who is very religious. Reason - his faith is private and he doesn't try to shove it down my throat like the Santorum-types would. I am cool with that. And for this reason, his faith is probably much more solid than the guys openly peddling "family values".

In Brannon's words, defense is very important. He wants the US to have the best defense, but he doesn't want to go around nation-building or sending taxpayer money to the mullahs. Our defense should be a "meek strength" (his words).

philipped
01-22-2014, 12:23 AM
Based on these comments after mine, and a few pages throughout the internet including his website, he gets a pass by me. I hope he makes it out of the primary and into the general!

Brian4Liberty
01-24-2014, 09:08 PM
426915119876931584

Brian4Liberty
01-28-2014, 06:05 PM
428316395588186112

Bastiat's The Law
01-28-2014, 07:30 PM
From what I've heard Brannon's a 10. He beats Ron because he knows the constitution inside out and is able to communicate much better than Ron.

Brannon is extremely articulate and a real scholar of the Constitution. His candidacy has me very excited!

Brian4Liberty
01-29-2014, 12:53 PM
428600987058569216

Christian Liberty
01-29-2014, 01:08 PM
I am sure Brannon's opposition to open borders is because of the ready-to-exploit welfare system we have. This is my opposition too. I don't really comprehend the LP position on this. If everyone who were to come here would be guaranteed to work and not become a public charge, then I would have less of a problem with open borders. But you can't even suggest this as an alternative lest the liberals come in and accuse everyone of cruelty, racism etc.
Yeah, the last sentence is the problem. At any rate, its not a big deal to me.

I am an atheist, but I can easily coexist with Brannon who is very religious. Reason - his faith is private and he doesn't try to shove it down my throat like the Santorum-types would. I am cool with that. And for this reason, his faith is probably much more solid than the guys openly peddling "family values".
"Family values": while we aren't killing people, that is:rolleyes:

In Brannon's words, defense is very important. He wants the US to have the best defense, but he doesn't want to go around nation-building or sending taxpayer money to the mullahs. Our defense should be a "meek strength" (his words).
Agreed.

philipped
01-29-2014, 08:22 PM
Lee Bright and Greg Brannon are two people I want to see make it into the Senate as allies to Rand this year.

Brett85
01-29-2014, 10:18 PM
I am sure Brannon's opposition to open borders is because of the ready-to-exploit welfare system we have. This is my opposition too. I don't really comprehend the LP position on this. If everyone who were to come here would be guaranteed to work and not become a public charge, then I would have less of a problem with open borders. But you can't even suggest this as an alternative lest the liberals come in and accuse everyone of cruelty, racism etc.

It's also a national security issue. I would rather have our troops along our border than have them spread out in 130 different countries around the world.

Christian Liberty
01-29-2014, 10:36 PM
It's also a national security issue. I would rather have our troops along our border than have them spread out in 130 different countries around the world.

I'm not really sure how putting troops on the border per say requires immigration laws. At any rate, having the troops on the border might be good while Ron Paul is in office, but it could be a disaster with a fascist in office. I'm really adamant on the standing army being dismantled at this point. Its not really a libertarian technicality for me anymore. I'm genuinely afraid of what the government might make them do.

Of course, I know Greg Brannon, Rand Paul, and the like would only use them as defense, if they even advocated keeping them standing at all. But I suspect they are in the minority on this point.

Brian4Liberty
02-17-2014, 07:59 PM
Moneybomb on now.