Question to purists- Do you want progress?

[nbhadja]

How do you expect to make progress in America? Your strategy seems to be convert everyone to become paleoconservatives or libertarians and then elect an entire government full of Ron Pauls. Does that really sound realistic to you?

You are missing the big picture. America was not stolen in one day and will not be taken back in one day either. It was stolen incrementally. There wasn't just a surge of globalist wrong on everything politicians that suddenly were elected and took control of the government. They slowly shifted the political landscape. They didn't instantly create the Fed, end the gold standard, create heavy taxes, police the world, create the war on drugs all in one swoop.

By not understanding the value of electing politicians who at least are good in certain areas, only supporting Ron Paul purity level candidates, and equating politicians who have some good views in critical areas with bad on everything politicians (like equating trump to bush or hillary) you are making your efforts in vain. Your strategy is awful.

Thankfully most people don't have this view, which is why there is a surge of support for anti-trade anti-globalist and anti-immigration politicians etc in Europe and America. Brexit and the future certain fall of the European Union would not be possible with your mindset.

I supported Rand Paul for president first. He lost and normally I wouldn't have voted after that for the big 2 candidates...but I voted for Trump because he is not some puppet shill like McCain Romney or Bush. He has some good views.

Consider the following:

Hillary wants to antagonize Russia and basically build up a massive conflict further while Trump is friendly with Russia. Its possible the election outcome may have prevented a war. Is there no value in that for you?

Trump will crack down on illegal immigration and finally end open borders. No value in that? What about establishing voter ID laws? Huge improvements in free trade deals at min or repealing them? No value? Cutting taxes? Cutting welfare? Ending Obamacare (even if you think he will replace it with bad at the very least he will open competition by ending state lines, repealing the individual mandate etc). What about how Politicians like Bush and Hillary directly fund terrorists, while trump will end that. At the very least foreign aid will be cut down and other countries will have to pay us for any services. At best he will slash foreign aid significantly....will crack down on islam... campaign finance reform.... This can go on and on.

In football terms you are basically trying to throw a hailmary every drive , going for it on 4th down every time and only accepting drives that end up with 7 points with no regard to field position, time of possession, field goals, plays that go for intermediate or short gains.. going for that madden bomb on every play.

Some of the hardcore purists (not many though) are so extreme that they refuse to even support Rand Paul.

You don't seem to know how to get things done.

[The Gold Standard]

Thankfully most people don't have this view, which is why there is a surge of support for anti-trade anti-globalist and anti-immigration politicians etc in Europe and America.

No, thanks.



Trump will crack down on illegal immigration and finally end open borders. No value in that?

Nope. Not with what he has in mind.


What about establishing voter ID laws?

Nope.


Huge improvements in free trade deals at min or repealing them? No value?

Nope. Not with what he has in mind.


Ending Obamacare (even if you think he will replace it with bad at the very least he will open competition by ending state lines, repealing the individual mandate etc).

Nope. Not with what he has in mind.



will crack down on islam

No, thank you. Get out.

[otherone]

You are missing the big picture. America was not stolen in one day

Stolen from whom?

[CaptUSA]

You are missing the big picture.

Lol. The big picture?! I'm not a "purist" by any means, but I do understand moving towards or away from a goal. Rand Paul would be moving towards the right goal. Maybe not as fast as some would like, but definitely in the right direction.

When your goal is liberty, it is not achieved through protectionism, government spending projects, and stricter government controls. (Whether that be moar border force, moar government databases, moar campaign finance control, moar crack down on Islam [whatever that means], or moar State control of media)

Cutting foreign aid would be great! I doubt that we'll see that, but even if we did, the other costs to liberty are too great! You've got yourself convinced your taking baby steps towards liberty, but you're really fumbling the snap and losing yardage! It'd be better for us all if you'd just knelt!

[fcreature]

Is your definition of "purist" someone who doesn't like Trump?

This entire post is retarded. There are very few actual purists here. Plz delete this garbage thread.

[euphemia]

I ask this same question because some of the hardcore cannibiats thought I was some sort of traitor because I didn't just love Gary Johnson. They thought I had to abandon some of the most closely held convictions because Johnson said he would cut the budget 43%.

No. I'm not going to give up personal liberty or vote for someone who considers the right to live of minimal consequence.

[CaptUSA]

Is your definition of "purist" someone who doesn't like Trump?

This entire post is retarded. There are very few actual purists here. Plz delete this garbage thread.

The answer is YES. That's what they believe. It's the only way they can fit the cognitive dissonance into their heads. If you can't see how Trump is good for you, you must be a purist.

[CCTelander]

The answer is YES. That's what they believe. It's the only way they can fit the cognitive dissonance into their heads. If you can't see how Trump is good for you, you must be a purist.


Hey, he's a SUPER GENIUS "bad-ass American" "god emperor." I read it right here on RPF so it must be true. Right?

[phill4paul]

"Progress" is for Progressives, not "purists." As a "purist" I want regress.

[euphemia]

I don't think there is any such thing as a purist. For the American citizen, the fundamental liberties are defined in the Constitution. I think part of the problem is that there is almost nobody here who can conceive a life without big government, and they have no idea how big government is.

Personal liberty means I do not have to ask the government's permission to live out my constitutional freedom. At the same time, I understand that untangling the mess will take time. It's like a divorce. Long and complicated.

[Seraphim]

I don't think there is any such thing as a purist. For the American citizen, the fundamental liberties are defined in the Constitution. I think part of the problem is that there is almost nobody here who can conceive a life without big government, and they have no idea how big government is.

Personal liberty means I do not have to ask the government's permission to live out my constitutional freedom. At the same time, I understand that untangling the mess will take time. It's like a divorce. Long and complicated.

Good post.

[helmuth_hubener]

It's the only way they can fit the cognitive dissonance into their heads.

We all have cognitive dissonance; you have cognitive dissonance. Get over it! :)

It is perfectly reasonable to be optimistic that President Trump will cut the size of the national government over the next four years -- maybe even more than Rand would have!

It is also perfectly reasonable to be pessimistic and assume that President Trump will turn into a typical politician, break his promises, grow the government, and do nothing particularly interesting.

Neither of these positions require any cognitive dissonance, logic-ignoring, mental disease, insanity, nor anything of the kind.

[euphemia]

It's perfectly reasonable that Trump will lead Congress to do a lot of things we like. That's why we keep talking to our elected representatives. They are the ones who will ultimately pass the legislation. The era of asleep-at-the-wheel politics is over. We woke up Washington. Now we have to keep them in the crosshairs and be ready to ditch them if they don't do what we sent them to Washington to do.

[Root]

Muh Trump!

[Occam's Banana]

To paraphrase famous abolition "purist" William Lloyd Garrison:


We have never said that liberty will be achieved at a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.

The OP makes the same mistake just about everyone who complains about so-called "purism" makes.

Namely, he thinks that "purism" is somehow opposed (rather than complementary) to "pragmatism" or "gradualism."

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about the matter (emphasis added):


Purism is Practical

Those who advocate ending, instead of reforming, the welfare-warfare state are often accused of being “impractical.” Some of the harshest criticisms come from libertarians who claim that advocates of “purism” forgo opportunities to make real progress toward restoring liberty. These critics fail to grasp the numerous reasons why it is crucial for libertarians to consistently and vigorously advance the purist position.

[...]

This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures. A gradual transition is the best way to achieve liberty without causing massive social and economic disruptions. However, we must only settle for compromises that actually move us in the right direction. So we should reject a compromise budget that “only” increases spending by 80 percent. In contrast, a budget that actually reduces spending by 20 percent would be a positive step forward.

Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position. This can actually increase the likelihood of taking real, if small, steps toward liberty. More importantly, the best way to ensure that we never achieve real liberty is for libertarians to shy away from making the case for the free society.

[...]

See here for the thread with the full article: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487693-Purism-is-Practical

And this was my response (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487693-Purism-is-Practical&p=6087535&viewfull=1#post6087535):


As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct ...

"Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position ..."

By definition, any compromise will always be a reconciliation between extremes (where an "extreme" is the full set of whatever a given side of a compromise actually wants, as distinct from what that side will actually be able to get). If gradualist reformers are to be effective, then for any reformative compromise to significantly skew our way, gradualist reformers must be "backstopped" by those who are willing and able to be more vocally absolutist and radical. Otherwise, the "spectrum of possibility" (so to speak) will be foreshortened, and gradualist reformism (rather than absolutist radicalism) will be the "extreme" upon which any compromise will be erected (to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of both gradualist reformers and absolutist radicals).

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures ..."

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...

[PierzStyx]

I don't think there is any such thing as a purist. For the American citizen, the fundamental liberties are defined in the Constitution.

No they aren't. In fact, this idea was one that the Anti-Federalists most feared, was the idea that people would think their rights came from government or were defined by any legal document. There are no unfundamental rights. And your rights are almost limitless.

I think part of the problem is that there is almost nobody here who can conceive a life without big government, and they have no idea how big government is.

Such as thinking government grants us rights?

Personal liberty means I do not have to ask the government's permission to live out my constitutional freedom.

If the Constitution gives you rights then it can take them away too.

At the same time, I understand that untangling the mess will take time. It's like a divorce. Long and complicated.

Not really. You quit and walk away. Done. Finito. That simple.

[euphemia]

Did you not read what I wrote? The Constitution itself does not give rights. It says there are three inalienable rights endowed by the Creator: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. The government doesn't give any rights and it cannot take them away. The Constitution merely sets them out as the basis of law. The limits are on government and anyone else who seeks to take those rights away.

[phill4paul]

To paraphrase famous abolition "purist" William Lloyd Garrison:


We have never said that liberty will be achieved at a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.

The OP makes the same mistake just about everyone who complains about so-called "purism" makes.

Namely, he thinks that "purism" is somehow opposed (rather than complementary) to "pragmatism" or "gradualism."

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about the matter (emphasis added):



See here for the thread with the full article: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487693-Purism-is-Practical

And this was my response (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487693-Purism-is-Practical&p=6087535&viewfull=1#post6087535):


As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct ...

"Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position ..."

By definition, any compromise will always be a reconciliation between extremes (where an "extreme" is the full set of whatever a given side of a compromise actually wants, as distinct from what that side will actually be able to get). If gradualist reformers are to be effective, then for any reformative compromise to significantly skew our way, gradualist reformers must be "backstopped" by those who are willing and able to be more vocally absolutist and radical. Otherwise, the "spectrum of possibility" (so to speak) will be foreshortened, and gradualist reformism (rather than absolutist radicalism) will be the "extreme" upon which any compromise will be erected (to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of both gradualist reformers and absolutist radicals).

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures ..."

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...


Outstanding. +rep.

[Suzanimal]

Outstanding. +rep.

Double + rep. I would rep all of OB's posts but I don't want him getting a big head.:) Or,too big for his banana.

[PierzStyx]

Did you not read what I wrote? The Constitution itself does not give rights. It says there are three inalienable rights endowed by the Creator: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. The government doesn't give any rights and it cannot take them away. The Constitution merely sets them out as the basis of law. The limits are on government and anyone else who seeks to take those rights away.

I did read what you wrote. Perhaps you did not covey your meaning very well.



Also, the Constitution says nothing about your rights. And it doesn't refer to them as the basis of law.


It is the Declaration of Independence that says:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration came a full ten years before the Constitution. And it was not designed to limit government. It was designed to expand the power of the government by replacing the Confederation of the Thirteen Sovereign Nation-States with one centralized bureaucratic government to regulate and control the everything.

[Ender]

I did read what you wrote. Perhaps you did not covey your meaning very well.



Also, the Constitution says nothing about your rights. And it doesn't refer to them as the basis of law.


It is the Declaration of Independence that says:



The Declaration came a full ten years before the Constitution. And it was not designed to limit government. It was designed to expand the power of the government by replacing the Confederation of the Thirteen Sovereign Nation-States with one centralized bureaucratic government to regulate and control the everything.

The Declaration is THE most important American document- nothing else comes close.

[helmuth_hubener]

Not really. You quit and walk away. Done. Finito. That simple.

Yeah, right. Words from an expert? You've never been married, Pierz, much less divorced. Am I right?

But you're correct about rights not being granted by the Constitution, nor by any other document. Not that Euphemia would disagree with that in the least.

[Natural Citizen]

I detest the term purist. It's a weasel word. Given that to be libertarian simply means to be against government-over-man, there is only fundamental. Fundamental is not purist. Fundamental is fundamental. So either The Individual or a group of Individuals support and defend the fundamental principles of (as well as the primary foundation for moral code for) Individual Liberty as an Indivisible whole or the Individual or group of Individuals do not. It's relatively simple. When you start inserting terms like purist into the terms of controversy all it really demonstrates is one's arbitrary sacrifice of fundamentals without actually acknowledging so. Weasel words like "purist" are intellectually dishonest.

[heavenlyboy34]

How do you expect to make progress in America? Your strategy seems to be convert everyone to become paleoconservatives or libertarians and then elect an entire government full of Ron Pauls. Does that really sound realistic to you?

It's entirely unrealistic-which is why I don't participate in politics. :)

[Natural Citizen]

It's entirely unrealistic-which is why I don't participate in politics. :)

Sad but true. Heck if I know what to do aside from trying to get through to people out there.

[AuH20]

How do you expect to make progress in America? Your strategy seems to be convert everyone to become paleoconservatives or libertarians and then elect an entire government full of Ron Pauls. Does that really sound realistic to you?

You are missing the big picture. America was not stolen in one day and will not be taken back in one day either. It was stolen incrementally. There wasn't just a surge of globalist wrong on everything politicians that suddenly were elected and took control of the government. They slowly shifted the political landscape. They didn't instantly create the Fed, end the gold standard, create heavy taxes, police the world, create the war on drugs all in one swoop.

By not understanding the value of electing politicians who at least are good in certain areas, only supporting Ron Paul purity level candidates, and equating politicians who have some good views in critical areas with bad on everything politicians (like equating trump to bush or hillary) you are making your efforts in vain. Your strategy is awful.

Thankfully most people don't have this view, which is why there is a surge of support for anti-trade anti-globalist and anti-immigration politicians etc in Europe and America. Brexit and the future certain fall of the European Union would not be possible with your mindset.

I supported Rand Paul for president first. He lost and normally I wouldn't have voted after that for the big 2 candidates...but I voted for Trump because he is not some puppet shill like McCain Romney or Bush. He has some good views.

Consider the following:

Hillary wants to antagonize Russia and basically build up a massive conflict further while Trump is friendly with Russia. Its possible the election outcome may have prevented a war. Is there no value in that for you?

Trump will crack down on illegal immigration and finally end open borders. No value in that? What about establishing voter ID laws? Huge improvements in free trade deals at min or repealing them? No value? Cutting taxes? Cutting welfare? Ending Obamacare (even if you think he will replace it with bad at the very least he will open competition by ending state lines, repealing the individual mandate etc). What about how Politicians like Bush and Hillary directly fund terrorists, while trump will end that. At the very least foreign aid will be cut down and other countries will have to pay us for any services. At best he will slash foreign aid significantly....will crack down on islam... campaign finance reform.... This can go on and on.

In football terms you are basically trying to throw a hailmary every drive , going for it on 4th down every time and only accepting drives that end up with 7 points with no regard to field position, time of possession, field goals, plays that go for intermediate or short gains.. going for that madden bomb on every play.

Some of the hardcore purists (not many though) are so extreme that they refuse to even support Rand Paul.

You don't seem to know how to get things done.

You make too much sense. Please leave.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sad but true. Heck if I know what to do aside from trying to get through to people out there.

I've found that I can have *some* influence on people I know personally. Hopefully it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. I expect it to take at least generation or 2 at least before people get sick of statism and still longer for them to want to do something meaningful about it.

[otherone]

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder30/500x/73290030.jpg

[jmdrake]

The root word of "progressive" is "progress."

We should not have blind opposition to progress but rather opposition to blind progress. nbhadja. You're pushing for voter ID and e-verify right? Are someone who says he's for liberty, do you not see the danger in a national ID card?

[KEEF]

Lol. The big picture?! I'm not a "purist" by any means, but I do understand moving towards or away from a goal. Rand Paul would be moving towards the right goal. Maybe not as fast as some would like, but definitely in the right direction.

When your goal is liberty, it is not achieved through protectionism, government spending projects, and stricter government controls. (Whether that be moar border force, moar government databases, moar campaign finance control, moar crack down on Islam [whatever that means], or moar State control of media)

Cutting foreign aid would be great! I doubt that we'll see that, but even if we did, the other costs to liberty are too great! You've got yourself convinced your taking baby steps towards liberty, but you're really fumbling the snap and losing yardage! It'd be better for us all if you'd just knelt!
^THIS^

[osan]

How do you1 expect to make progress2 in America?

1: To whom do you refer, specifically?

2: Without the specificity from 1, we have no idea what you mean by "progress". Please elaborate in detail.


Your strategy seems to be convert everyone to become paleoconservatives or libertarians and then elect an entire government full of Ron Pauls. Does that really sound realistic to you?

A valid question, but your insinuation that this is what all "purists" are about fails rather notably. It is no different in principle from "they all look the same to me".


You are missing the big picture.

Some, perhaps, but you paint with what seems an overly-broad brush.


America was not stolen in one day and will not be taken back in one day either.

Now you appear to be talking some sense.


It was stolen incrementally. There wasn't just a surge of globalist wrong on everything politicians that suddenly were elected and took control of the government. They slowly shifted the political landscape. They didn't instantly create the Fed, end the gold standard, create heavy taxes, police the world, create the war on drugs all in one swoop.

Well stated, though the Fed was pretty much instantly created. :)


By not understanding the value of electing politicians who at least are good in certain areas, only supporting Ron Paul purity level candidates, and equating politicians who have some good views in critical areas with bad on everything politicians (like equating trump to bush or hillary) you are making your efforts in vain. Your strategy is awful.

I cannot disagree with anything you wrote there. I just wrote on this very topic this morning, prior to discovering this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504253-Ron-Paul-The-%91Swamp%92-won%92t-be-drained-very-well&p=6365790&viewfull=1#post6365790).


Thankfully most people don't have this view,

Perhaps, but theirs are generally worse, but coming from another direction. A great plurality of Americans subscribe not only to the bankrupt tenets of progressivism, but are quite comfy with the violation and even murder of anyone standing in the way of realizing their political wet-dream of free lunch, death to white people, and the freedom to butt-sex on the courthouse steps with no fear.


Brexit and the future certain fall of the European Union would not be possible with your mindset.

I would not go quite that far.


I voted for Trump because he is not some puppet shill like McCain Romney or Bush.

We don't know that yet. It is my hope you prove right on this matter, but I'm not putting my eggs in anyone's basket just yet.


He has some good views.

He has EXPRESSED some good views. Whether they are indeed his remains to be seen. Let us hope you are correct.


Consider the following:

Hillary wants to antagonize Russia and basically build up a massive conflict further while Trump is friendly with Russia. Its possible the election outcome may have prevented a war. Is there no value in that for you?

You are assuming this to be the case. It may well be, but I maintain that it is an unproven belief. Let us not turn away from the fact that we live in a world of spin and outright lies. The art, craft, and technology of the lie, and of bullshit, are as never before. Every passing day shows it ever more difficult to tell who is telling truth, who is lying, and who is mixing the two. Actions will prove more eloquent than words. Net results will demonstrate the truer measure of Trump than his speak. At this point, only time will reveal the deeper truth, so my recommendation to everyone is to chill the hell out, get on the skeptic's fence, and keep your eyes peeled.


In football terms you are basically trying to throw a hailmary every drive , going for it on 4th down every time and only accepting drives that end up with 7 points with no regard to field position, time of possession, field goals, plays that go for intermediate or short gains.. going for that madden bomb on every play.

This is an excellent analogy. Kudos and rep.



You [purists] don't seem to know how to get things done.

You go too far. I am a purist of the deepest vein, and yet over the years I have learned the art of being pragmatic. I am still learning.

Purists are absolutely essential to the cause of liberty. They are the ones who enshrine, guard, and preserve the ideals toward which all should strive. Without them, those ideals end up trampled upon by the presumably well-intending oafs whose flagging virtues cause them to compromise away that which is right in exchange for that which feels good at the moment. It is the idealist who stands at the narthex of the temple, rifle in hand, saying "thou shalt not pass". Without him, truth stands to be lost at the hands of dullards and malefactors. Do not be too eager to drill holes in him. Think of him as the equivalent of the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

[Jesse James]

Stolen from whom?
it was stolen by the federalists in 1787

[Jingles]

I'm pretty damn pure when it comes to Anarcho-Capitalism, but we also need to remember we live in reality as well. So we need to play some games with the system sometimes to gain some progress for ourselves. I think a Trump presidency is in that direction. If it were Romney or McCain I really wouldn't think so (also it was very different circumstances... Rand was hardly even in the primary this go around. Ron actually could have won, especially in 2012. Trump was always my second best pick this go around mainly because he wasn't owned).

In terms of the political system, if you refuse to participate in any form, you aren't going to be too effective changing anything within. I know we have civil disobedience and the like, but we need some of us in politics to at least try and lessen the damage government does to us (that's my view of what Ron Paul did).

And if anyone is a little awed by what I said, just read everything Rothbard has done in his life. He had a similar idea as well.

[Murray N Rothbard]

I want progress---- PERIOD. I do NOT necessarily require progress in the next 4 years, nor the next 40 years, or even my lifetime. As someone who has studied Libertarianism and politics extensively, I am resigned to, and content with, the fact that true liberty will never be achieved in my lifetime. I think progress comes from ideas. Bills and laws are sometimes nice, but they can be erased instantly. Ideas are forever.

[GunnyFreedom]

http://i.imgur.com/ReOnXFv.png

[John F Kennedy III]

I detest the term purist. It's a weasel word. Given that to be libertarian simply means to be against government-over-man, there is only fundamental. Fundamental is not purist. Fundamental is fundamental. So either The Individual or a group of Individuals support and defend the fundamental principles of (as well as the primary foundation for moral code for) Individual Liberty as an Indivisible whole or the Individual or group of Individuals do not. It's relatively simple. When you start inserting terms like purist into the terms of controversy all it really demonstrates is one's arbitrary sacrifice of fundamentals without actually acknowledging so. Weasel words like "purist" are intellectually dishonest.

Well said.

[oyarde]

Stolen from whom?

I would say it was on a downward spiral by the time white men crossed the Alleghenies and Cumberlands ( Mountains )in any number greater than a few. By then it was only a matter of time, next thing you know govt is blowing the peoples money on food stamps , Mango farms in Pakistan etc

[otherone]

it was stolen by the federalists in 1787

from whom?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Technological and scientific progress are real things, so-called "social progress" is a myth.

But I digress. There's a certain kind of person who intentionally holds political opinions that cannot be tested or applied, and indeed, they don't want them to be. They don't actually want to do the work that it takes to move civilization in their preferred direction. Instead, they want to portray themselves as "above the fray" and take pot shots at the status quo. It gives them pleasure to view themselves as having transcended the mire that the rest of the masses wallow in.

These people don't want power. They talk endlessly about the kind of society they desire and complain about how little the one they live in resembles it while giving no plan of action to actually move toward that goal. The irony is, they'd be miserable living in the kind of civilization they crow about. If it came about, they'd be unable to be the critic, constantly talking about how the system sucks.

This phenomenon is far bigger than just libertarianism, but the vast majority of ancaps fall under this umbrella.

[Dangergirl]

And yet the man himself pursued the GOP, an imperfect party in order to gain progress for Liberty. His son also followed his father's lead, as well as other liberty-minded representatives. Does that mean Ron compromised his principals by abandoning a third party run and trying to convert the GOP? No, it was a brilliant move. It was a strategy that pushed a movement into the mainstream (God I hate that word now :D). He worked with a party he resigned from in order to give himself and other like-minded people a platform that we needed.

If your goal is to win, then you need to take every advantage you can. A compromising position is not the same as compromising your principals if you are honest about yourself and to yourself and willing to strike when the time is right. The battlefield is not 2020, it's now and constantly will be.

[Ender]

I detest the term purist. It's a weasel word. Given that to be libertarian simply means to be against government-over-man, there is only fundamental. Fundamental is not purist. Fundamental is fundamental. So either The Individual or a group of Individuals support and defend the fundamental principles of (as well as the primary foundation for moral code for) Individual Liberty as an Indivisible whole or the Individual or group of Individuals do not. It's relatively simple. When you start inserting terms like purist into the terms of controversy all it really demonstrates is one's arbitrary sacrifice of fundamentals without actually acknowledging so. Weasel words like "purist" are intellectually dishonest.

1000% in agreement-

[Jesse James]

from whom?
the people that won the Revolution

[Theocrat]

How do you expect to make progress in America? Your strategy seems to be convert everyone to become paleoconservatives or libertarians and then elect an entire government full of Ron Pauls. Does that really sound realistic to you?

You are missing the big picture. America was not stolen in one day and will not be taken back in one day either. It was stolen incrementally. There wasn't just a surge of globalist wrong on everything politicians that suddenly were elected and took control of the government. They slowly shifted the political landscape. They didn't instantly create the Fed, end the gold standard, create heavy taxes, police the world, create the war on drugs all in one swoop.

By not understanding the value of electing politicians who at least are good in certain areas, only supporting Ron Paul purity level candidates, and equating politicians who have some good views in critical areas with bad on everything politicians (like equating trump to bush or hillary) you are making your efforts in vain. Your strategy is awful.

Thankfully most people don't have this view, which is why there is a surge of support for anti-trade anti-globalist and anti-immigration politicians etc in Europe and America. Brexit and the future certain fall of the European Union would not be possible with your mindset.

I supported Rand Paul for president first. He lost and normally I wouldn't have voted after that for the big 2 candidates...but I voted for Trump because he is not some puppet shill like McCain Romney or Bush. He has some good views.

Consider the following:

Hillary wants to antagonize Russia and basically build up a massive conflict further while Trump is friendly with Russia. Its possible the election outcome may have prevented a war. Is there no value in that for you?

Trump will crack down on illegal immigration and finally end open borders. No value in that? What about establishing voter ID laws? Huge improvements in free trade deals at min or repealing them? No value? Cutting taxes? Cutting welfare? Ending Obamacare (even if you think he will replace it with bad at the very least he will open competition by ending state lines, repealing the individual mandate etc). What about how Politicians like Bush and Hillary directly fund terrorists, while trump will end that. At the very least foreign aid will be cut down and other countries will have to pay us for any services. At best he will slash foreign aid significantly....will crack down on islam... campaign finance reform.... This can go on and on.

In football terms you are basically trying to throw a hailmary every drive , going for it on 4th down every time and only accepting drives that end up with 7 points with no regard to field position, time of possession, field goals, plays that go for intermediate or short gains.. going for that madden bomb on every play.

Some of the hardcore purists (not many though) are so extreme that they refuse to even support Rand Paul.

You don't seem to know how to get things done.

[Bold emphasis mine]

You voted for Trump because he's not a "puppet shill like Romney"? Then why is Trump considering that "puppet shill" as his Secretary of State (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-set-meet-today-mitt-romney-michelle-rhee/story?id=43655958)?

[jmdrake]

We all have cognitive dissonance; you have cognitive dissonance. Get over it! :)

It is perfectly reasonable to be optimistic that President Trump will cut the size of the national government over the next four years -- maybe even more than Rand would have!

It is also perfectly reasonable to be pessimistic and assume that President Trump will turn into a typical politician, break his promises, grow the government, and do nothing particularly interesting.

Neither of these positions require any cognitive dissonance, logic-ignoring, mental disease, insanity, nor anything of the kind.

A senior Trump advisor just promised to take 1 trillion dollars for "infrastructure", throw it against the wall and see what sticks. So if I believe Trump's promises......

Seriously, which of Trump's promises should I believe? Should I believe him when he says he's going to deport all of the illegals and just bring back the "good ones" through the "big beautiful hole" in the "big beautiful wall" that he's going to build and that Mexico is going to pay for? Do I believe him when he say no to wars of regime change or when he was advocating taking out Gaddafi but making sure we "get the oil" in the process? If Trump keeps his promises....he'll be breaking his promises.

[H. E. Panqui]

"Progress" is for Progressives, not "purists." As a "purist" I want regress.

:cool:

...going back (a regression) in US history will reveal no/very little 'purity'....(pure fascism maybe)

..lol!..what a thread!...hey 'impurists,' how much sh!t do you tolerate in your water and still swallow it?..

[hint for republicrats:...learn a little honest monetary reality and stfu about purity...] ;)

[presence]

I'm w/ Panqui.

It all boils down to financial freedom to me.

Zero "progress" can be counted on this side of a legal tender and income tax regime.

END THE FED
END THE IRS

When 60k pages of tax code and the "money" printing machines are gone, we can talk about "progress" from there toward eliminating federal, state, and local economic regulations.

Until the theft ends, I only see revolution on the horizon and have little care for progress.

[Pericles]

The free state concept is a sound idea. Unfortunately we have neither the numbers or resources to realize that dream.

In a state that has many of the same qualities, a free county project has a much better chance of success, and serve as the pilot program which demonstrates the concept.

In any case, the amount of liberty gained and maintained must be defended by force of arms. This is an unpleasant truth that it seems to me is wished to be avoided by many libertarians. There is always a point in time at which the forces of tyranny will seek to destroy such an undertaking, and the result must be bodies on the ground and piles of hot brass.

Until we are willing to do that, there will not be liberty throughout the land.

[CaptUSA]

If the goal is to climb the mountain of liberty, you don't progress towards that goal by digging a deeper hole.

[otherone]

If the goal is to climb the mountain of liberty, you don't progress towards that goal by digging a deeper hole.

or,
If you want to be Free, you don't build a wall.

[Pericles]

or,
If you want to be Free, you don't build a wall.

I do when I want to make it more difficult for people to be free to steal my stuff, or my job, or my family members, or my life.

[otherone]

I do when I want to make it more difficult for people to be free to steal my stuff, or my job, or my family members, or my life.

You have a wall around your own little Athens, Pericles?

[Pericles]

You have a wall around your own little Athens, Pericles?

Look at very prosperous and more often than not relatively free citizenry at times and places throughout history. They were very restrictive about who was accorded the privilege of joining them.

Everyone else in the world was perfectly free to copy those successful societies. Why didn't they?

[otherone]

Look at very prosperous and more often than not relatively free citizenry at times and places throughout history. They were very restrictive about who was accorded the privilege of joining them.

Everyone else in the world was perfectly free to copy those successful societies. Why didn't they?

What does that have to do with your desire to rob me so you can feel safe?

[CaptUSA]

Look at very prosperous and more often than not relatively free citizenry at times and places throughout history. They were very restrictive about who was accorded the privilege of joining them.

Everyone else in the world was perfectly free to copy those successful societies. Why didn't they?

I'll just leave this here...

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors." - Robert Frost, Mending Wall

[helmuth_hubener]

A senior Trump advisor just promised to take 1 trillion dollars for "infrastructure", throw it against the wall and see what sticks. So if I believe Trump's promises......

Seriously, which of Trump's promises should I believe? Should I believe him when he says he's going to deport all of the illegals and just bring back the "good ones" through the "big beautiful hole" in the "big beautiful wall" that he's going to build and that Mexico is going to pay for? Do I believe him when he say no to wars of regime change or when he was advocating taking out Gaddafi but making sure we "get the oil" in the process? If Trump keeps his promises....he'll be breaking his promises.
I am not saying you ought to believe any of them. Nor that anyone else should. Nor, indeed that anyone should believe anything that anyone says.

I am simply saying that both optimism and pessimism are outside of the realm of logic. Both attitudes are equally reasonable in this case.

[helmuth_hubener]

What does that have to do with your desire to rob me so you can feel safe?

Your hallucination is noted.

Pericles expressed no such desire.

[otherone]

Your hallucination is noted.

Pericles expressed no such desire.

Neither did he express a desire to build a wall around his own house, using his own money, to keep his own stuff safe.

[jmdrake]

I am not saying you ought to believe any of them. Nor that anyone else should. Nor, indeed that anyone should believe anything that anyone says.

I am simply saying that both optimism and pessimism are outside of the realm of logic. Both attitudes are equally reasonable in this case.

Sure. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be optimistic about when it comes to Trump. :p :confused:

[helmuth_hubener]

Sure. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be optimistic about when it comes to Trump. :p :confused:
I am optimistic. So, perhaps, I'm a good one to explain. (Or perhaps that actually makes me poorly-suited to the task!)

Anyway, first: Trump is his own man, not a puppet. That's just a fact. So, that means: who knows what he'll do! He could do whatever! Literally. There are not the massive behind-the-scenes strings of lobbyists and puppet-masters controlling him. So he's a wild card. That certainly doesn't mean he'll do something good -- but it means that he could.

Second: many, many of the things he talked about during the campaign are things that would be good for liberty. People tend like to stay in character. Politicians can't keep impossible promises, but they can and do stay true to the general ideological platform they set out during the campaign. Obama promised ObamaCare. Guess what? Delivered! Promise kept. Bush delivered on his promise to be a "compassionate" big-government conservative and to expand Medicare to pay for drugs. Presidents generally are pretty much -- or, often, exactly! -- the type of president anyone could have predicted them to be before being elected. Obama has been exactly the type of President I would have expected him to be, based on who he was while campaigning. Exactly. Same with Bush.

Let's expand on this second point. Mr. Donald J. Trump has:

• Promised to put a freeze on all new regulations. This actually seems to be happening, by the way! To all appearances, this is his settled policy, his actual plan. It realistically may happen once he is sworn in. If it does, this would be, by far, the best and most important libertarian victory on the Federal level in my lifetime. Probably, in fact, the hugest victory since the mass-liberalization following WWII.

• Proposed to pay off the national debt by selling off federal assets. This is the Harry Browne plan. That Mr. Trump proposed this shows, by the way, if nothing else, that he has listened to or read Harry Browne's policy proposals (or that he's a libertarian super-genius who came up with the same thing as Harry independently). That is a good thing, in my book. Now, it goes without saying, this is wildly unlikely to actually happen. If it does, we will all be so insanely happy we will forget about any problem we ever had with Trump and every libertarian in America will build a monument to him in his front yard and name or re-name all his children Donald... including the girls.

• Promised to appoint people to the (so-called) Supreme Court from a list of candidates who are conservative and largely small-government people (compared to the status quo). This is certainly not too hard to imagine happening. Seems very doable. Very likely he will deliver on this promise.

There are lots of other proposals and policy statements that could be listed, but three's a good number, people can wrap their heads around three. And those are three great positions Trump took on the campaign trail. Good for him.

Third: Both the House and Senate are Republican majority. Donald Trump will just be the President. A lot of what happens is determined by Congress. There are many items that are on the Republican agenda that are small-government pro-liberty items. With both houses and a friendly President, they could start to get through. Even some Rand Paul bills might get passed and signed. We'll see.

Anyway, I can't control what happens, so why not enjoy it? Why not be optimistic? For the first time in my lifetime, there is actually some real, articulable reason to be optimistic! (no matter how slight.) So yeah, I'm optimistic, and then when nothing good happens and instead everything bad does, I can have my hopes crushed to pieces and dashed on the rocks and shake my fist at the betrayal! It's all part of the fun!

[H. E. Panqui]

helmuth trumpets: Anyway, first: Trump is his own man, not a puppet. That's just a fact.

:rolleyes:

....and you know this exactly how?...do you know him personally?...or do you 'know' him through 'the media' ?your republicans frequently condemn...

...let's say someone owed gold sack$ and/or the chinese government banksters, etc., some yuuuuuuge illion$...would that person be his own man?...

...good grief, helmuth, i know the holiday season is rough for a lot of republicrats...maybe lay off the keyboard republicrat cheerleading for a while... ;)

[presence]

Neither did he express a desire to build a wall around his own house, using his own money, to keep his own stuff safe.

Are you promoting self responsibility on RPF? That's uncalled for. We demand tax funded government solutions to our problems around here.

[otherone]

Are you promoting self responsibility on RPF? That's uncalled for. We demand tax funded government solutions to our problems around here.

Wake up, Purist.
It takes a village to protect muh culture.

[The Gold Standard]

Wake up, Purist.
It takes a village to protect muh culture.

Out of rep.

[CCTelander]

Out of rep.


Covered.

[Superfluous Man]

Trump will crack down on illegal immigration and finally end open borders. No value in that? .

Nope. No value at all. See the site mission statement.

You're not just less pure than us. You are pursuing a mission that is totally opposed to ours.

[Superfluous Man]

I think a Trump presidency is in that direction. If it were Romney or McCain I really wouldn't think so

You must be pretty liberal then.

[HVACTech]

Is your definition of "purist" someone who doesn't like Trump?

This entire post is retarded. There are very few actual purists here. Plz delete this garbage thread.

substitute the word "purist" for "Anarchist" and it will make more sense to you. Anarchists dont like anything.
(even you)

[kcchiefs6465]

substitute the word "purist" for "Anarchist" and it will make more sense to you. Anarchists dont like anything.
(even you)
Those damn pesky anarchists. Always advocating people mind their own business and keep their own resources and shit.

Fucking barbarians.

[Ender]

Those damn pesky anarchists. Always advocating people mind their own business and keep their own resources and $#@!.

$#@!ing barbarians.

LOL!

And- yep. ;)

[Jingles]

You must be pretty liberal then.

I don't see how that makes me liberal, but whatever.

[CCTelander]

Those damn pesky anarchists. Always advocating people mind their own business and keep their own resources and shit.

Fucking barbarians.


Really. Who the hell do they think they are advocating against shoving guns in people's faces to get them to behave in the prescribed manner. Savages.

[Superfluous Man]

I don't see how that makes me liberal, but whatever.

Since Trump is so far to the left of Romney and McCain and you think he's better than them.

[HVACTech]

Those damn pesky anarchists. Always advocating people mind their own business and keep their own resources and $#@!.

$#@!ing barbarians.

how is an Anarchist... NOT a "purist" sir? :confused:

perchance, thou will enlighten me?

[Jingles]

Since Trump is so far to the left of Romney and McCain and you think he's better than them.

I really don't share your perspective in that regard. In terms of some social issues, I can see that. But I've never been religious conservative so I don't see that as a problem. In my view, Trump (to me at least) is kind of a Pat Buchanan. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he has the interests of the nation at heart (a la I don't like protectionism, but I do dislike NAFTA, TPP, and such). But I'm glad Trump isn't a raving neocon. I'm happy he has a great interest in the American worker and trying to restore prosperity to those that are willing to work and stand up for those that kick their ass every day to make a living whilst we have welfare slaves living off the state.

And I like his stance on Illegal immigration. How the hell illegal immigrants VOTE in our elections is beyond my comprehension. Let me just sneak my way into the UK/Canada/Aussieland and some how vote... Like, really? Why the hell would we ever support people coming into this nation collecting free welfare/healthcare WHO DON'T EVEN COME HER LEGALLY!? You can either have open borders or a welfare state... Currently we have both. Big part of our debt there.

I think the greatest thing about him is that he isn't bought by companies or the political establishment. If nothing else he is a giant middle finger to the lobbyists, corporate interests, and etc... that have so much influence in our nation's politics.

I just view (currently) that Trump can have a positive influence on some policies we wish to move forward (he criticizes The Fed for example, and go back and watch him attack "JEB!" on the Iraq war).

If he doesn't do anything we like and goes against us, I will certainly be the first to attack him and go against him. I guess I'm just more of an optimist when it comes to Trump because I see him a just in general a great human being (Especially living on the East coast in the Tri-state area. He helps so many people and hires all he can.)

[Superfluous Man]

I really don't share your perspective in that regard. In terms of some social issues, I can see that. But I've never been religious conservative so I don't see that as a problem. In my view, Trump (to me at least) is kind of a Pat Buchanan. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think he has the interests of the nation at heart (a la I don't like protectionism, but I do dislike NAFTA, TPP, and such). But I'm glad Trump isn't a raving neocon. I'm happy he has a great interest in the American worker and trying to restore prosperity to those that are willing to work and stand up for those that kick their ass every day to make a living whilst we have welfare slaves living off the state.

And I like his stance on Illegal immigration. How the hell illegal immigrants VOTE in our elections is beyond my comprehension. Let me just sneak my way into the UK/Canada/Aussieland and some how vote... Like, really? Why the hell would we ever support people coming into this nation collecting free welfare/healthcare WHO DON'T EVEN COME HER LEGALLY!? You can either have open borders or a welfare state... Currently we have both. Big part of our debt there.

I think the greatest thing about him is that he isn't bought by companies or the political establishment. If nothing else he is a giant middle finger to the lobbyists, corporate interests, and etc... that have so much influence in our nation's politics.

I just view (currently) that Trump can have a positive influence on some policies we wish to move forward (he criticizes The Fed for example, and go back and watch him attack "JEB!" on the Iraq war).

If he doesn't do anything we like and goes against us, I will certainly be the first to attack him and go against him. I guess I'm just more of an optimist when it comes to Trump because I see him a just in general a great human being (Especially living on the East coast in the Tri-state area. He helps so many people and hires all he can.)

You have it almost backwards. Yes, Trump is more liberal than they are on social issues. But Buchanan sure isn't. Buchanan is a social conservative and fiscal moderate. And Trump is even more blatantly liberal on fiscal issues than he is on social ones. His trade and immigration stances that you like so much are also blatantly leftist, much more so than McCain's relatively more free market approach in particular. Trump is by far the most liberal Republican presidential candidate in history in both fiscal and social issues (using liberal in the modern American sense, not the classical sense).

To say nothing of Ron Paul, who makes McCain look liberal even on immigration.

[osan]

How do you expect to make progress in America?

You have neglected to define your terms.

FAIL.


Your strategy seems to be convert everyone to become paleoconservatives or libertarians and then elect an entire government full of Ron Pauls. Does that really sound realistic to you?

You speak as if to a block of clones.

FAIL.


You are missing the big picture. America was not stolen in one day and will not be taken back in one day either. It was stolen incrementally. There wasn't just a surge of globalist wrong on everything politicians that suddenly were elected and took control of the government. They slowly shifted the political landscape. They didn't instantly create the Fed, end the gold standard, create heavy taxes, police the world, create the war on drugs all in one swoop.


You belabor the obvious, as if to instruct a roomful of halfwits and imbeciles.


By not understanding the value of electing politicians who at least are good in certain areas, only supporting Ron Paul purity level candidates, and equating politicians who have some good views in critical areas with bad on everything politicians (like equating trump to bush or hillary) you are making your efforts in vain. Your strategy is awful.

You presume too much.


Thankfully most people don't have this view, which is why there is a surge of support for anti-trade anti-globalist and anti-immigration politicians etc in Europe and America. Brexit and the future certain fall of the European Union would not be possible with your mindset.

The "mindset" you apparently wish to give praise is precisely that which brought us to this sorry pass. Perhaps if you thought a bit prior to actuating your keyboard...


I supported Rand Paul for president first. He lost and normally I wouldn't have voted after that for the big 2 candidates...but I voted for Trump because he is not some puppet shill like McCain Romney or Bush. He has some good views.

Trump remains to be proven. I would not be too fast to condemn or prepare to get on my knees, were I you.



Hillary wants to antagonize Russia and basically build up a massive conflict further while Trump is friendly with Russia. Its possible the election outcome may have prevented a war. Is there no value in that for you?

This is the brand of semi-coherent sentence that leads one to wonder whether you are a heavy substance abuser.


Trump will crack down on illegal immigration and finally end open borders. No value in that? What about establishing voter ID laws? Huge improvements in free trade deals at min or repealing them? No value? Cutting taxes? Cutting welfare? Ending Obamacare (even if you think he will replace it with bad at the very least he will open competition by ending state lines, repealing the individual mandate etc). What about how Politicians like Bush and Hillary directly fund terrorists, while trump will end that. At the very least foreign aid will be cut down and other countries will have to pay us for any services. At best he will slash foreign aid significantly....will crack down on islam... campaign finance reform.... This can go on and on.

In football terms you are basically trying to throw a hailmary every drive , going for it on 4th down every time and only accepting drives that end up with 7 points with no regard to field position, time of possession, field goals, plays that go for intermediate or short gains.. going for that madden bomb on every play.

Some of the hardcore purists (not many though) are so extreme that they refuse to even support Rand Paul.

You don't seem to know how to get things done.

Your entire post hints at a point, yet never comes to one. I could spend the evening guessing what it might be, but I have better things to do with my time, like set my hair on fire.

These tentative jabs you take get you nowhere. When you finally decide what it is you seek to say, please do come back and visit us again.

[Jingles]

You have it almost backwards. Yes, Trump is more liberal than they are on social issues. But Buchanan sure isn't. Buchanan is a social conservative and fiscal moderate. And Trump is even more blatantly liberal on fiscal issues than he is on social ones. His trade and immigration stances that you like so much are also blatantly leftist, much more so than McCain's relatively more free market approach in particular. Trump is by far the most liberal Republican presidential candidate in history in both fiscal and social issues (using liberal in the modern American sense, not the classical sense).

To say nothing of Ron Paul, who makes McCain look liberal even on immigration.

I think you and I just have a different definitions of "liberal" and you are trying to charge me on that. I guess we just have to agree to disagree here because we aren't connecting on any much common ground because of how differently we are interrupting the situation. Our perspectives our simply different here.

[pcosmar]

Am I a purist?

I have never thought so of myself.

Been here a while,, Talked to Ron. He did seem to represent me. (better than others)

I hold certain truths to be self evident..

Does that make me a purest?

If so I will give answer.