PDA

View Full Version : Rand votes for Sessions as AG




Matt Collins
02-09-2017, 01:30 AM
Lots of angst on Facebook over this vote.

jonhowe
02-09-2017, 01:36 AM
Awful. What possible excuse could he have? Sessions is the antithesis to what Rand claims to believe.

CPUd
02-09-2017, 01:37 AM
He always said he would. Not a big fan of him engaging in party bullshit, I guess he has to pick his battles.

John F Kennedy III
02-09-2017, 01:38 AM
Yeah this was a bad vote for Rand.

timosman
02-09-2017, 01:39 AM
Yeah this was a bad vote for Rand.

Sorry guys, I am just a little boy.

John F Kennedy III
02-09-2017, 01:41 AM
Sorry guys, I am just a little boy.

Grow up.

Feeding the Abscess
02-09-2017, 02:04 AM
Paul said that he was most concerned about Lynch's support of civil forfeiture laws. They permit the Internal Revenue Service to seize property that is suspected of being produced by or involved in crime. The agency has been accused of abusing the statutes.

Oops.

EBounding
02-09-2017, 07:58 AM
Yeah this is bad. On the flip-side he got a lot of grief from "teocons" by voting against Pompeo. He's going to get grief no matter what, so he might as well go all out "radical".

I'm sure he's trying to get his healthcare and Fed audit bill through, but who cares? Trump campaigned on both of those things, so they should go through no matter what, right?

PatriotOne
02-09-2017, 08:07 AM
Good for Rand. Sessions is a good man. He's not going after YOUR freedoms. He's going after the freedoms of child, drug, weapon and organ harvester's freedoms within our own government. So hold your angst.

You think he was so vehemently opposed by the Dems because he was racist? No....they are scared to death because he's not compromised and they have nothing to blackmail him with. Shit about to go down!

CPUd
02-09-2017, 08:10 AM
Good people don't smoke marijuana

Pizzo
02-09-2017, 09:19 AM
Good for Rand. Sessions is a good man. He's not going after YOUR freedoms. He's going after the freedoms of child, drug, weapon and organ harvester's freedoms within our own government. So hold your angst.

You think he was so vehemently opposed by the Dems because he was racist? No....they are scared to death because he's not compromised and they have nothing to blackmail him with. $#@! about to go down!

Fucking wow.

jllundqu
02-09-2017, 10:33 AM
Ron Paul would have voted NO. Period.

jonhowe
02-09-2017, 10:35 AM
Good for Rand. Sessions is a good man. He's not going after YOUR freedoms. He's going after the freedoms of child, drug, weapon and organ harvester's freedoms within our own government. So hold your angst.

You think he was so vehemently opposed by the Dems because he was racist? No....they are scared to death because he's not compromised and they have nothing to blackmail him with. $#@! about to go down!

I can tell you for a fact he's going after my freedoms.


Did you see anyone HERE mention race? No? Good, that's not the issue. Stop letting them distract you.

Matt Collins
02-09-2017, 10:47 AM
Good for Rand. Sessions is a good man. He's not going after YOUR freedoms.
You obviously haven't seen Sessions' track record of doing very bad things (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504307-Why-Sessions-will-likely-be-an-awful-AG&highlight=sessions)

Valli6
02-09-2017, 11:22 AM
I'm depending on Rand Paul to bring people like Sessions and Trump up to date on issues like civil asset forfeiture and marijuana.

What was the likelihood that Trump was ever going to appoint someone who agrees with us on such issues? I'd guess none whatsoever. Meanwhile, Sessions has stood by the Constitution on some other issues - much more so than anyone a democrat would prefer.

When the time comes, I have every expectation that Rand will stand up and fight for changes - putting a realistic face on drug use - as opposed to the lazy/hippy/criminal stereotypes from the 70's, which old man Sessions probably still has in his head.

While Trump's recent comments about civil asset forfeiture were awful, he appeared to believe it is something used primarily against drug cartels. This makes me doubt he has any idea how often civil asset forfeiture has been abused for profit, used against ordinary people who can't fight back regardless of innocence. We all know there are hundreds (at least!) of instances Rand could site to drive home this point and It will be up to him to ensure that the truth is exposed and help make the case against it's constitutionality.

When Rand argues against bad policies, I surmise that competing arguments (and votes) will not break down along typical party lines. He will have reliable Republicans on his side and possibly, all or most Democrats (seeing as most dems will only care about demonstrating how anti-Sessions or anti-Trump they are ;)).

Brian4Liberty
02-09-2017, 11:32 AM
I'm depending on Rand Paul to bring people like Sessions and Trump up to date on issues like civil asset forfeiture and marijuana.

Did Rand get a chance to question Sessions? I don't recall seeing that. It would be telling to see how Sessions would answer specific questions. Hopefully Rand would have asked him about forfeiture and the war on drugs.

If Rand does want to have influence in the future with Sessions, this would not be the time for a symbolic "no" vote. Sessions was going through no matter what. That is strategic politics.

Brian4Liberty
02-09-2017, 11:49 AM
Ron Paul would have voted NO. Period.

Did Ron recommend a "no" vote?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhPMnDd0rmY

Brett85
02-09-2017, 01:05 PM
Of course he wasn't going to vote against a Senator from his own party for a cabinet position. To do so would've been unprecedented and would've accomplished nothing. Would Christie or Giuliani as AG have been better? Of course not, and one of them would've been confirmed as AG had Sessions been blocked.

Brett85
02-09-2017, 01:10 PM
Matt seemed to be politically smart and realistic at one time. Not so much anymore apparently.

Valli6
02-09-2017, 01:11 PM
Did Rand get a chance to question Sessions? I don't recall seeing that.
I don't think he did - I can't find anything. There's video of Rand questioning Gen. Kelly (Homeland Security) the same day Sessions' hearing started. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHddyJKcxj4
If both hearings happened on the same days, he probably had to choose one or the other.

Brett85
02-09-2017, 01:23 PM
There was also a political witch hunt going on against Sessions by the Democrats, claiming he was a racist when no such evidence ever existed. So let's see. Rand was going to give up all of the political capital he had and be the only Republican to join the left in a political witch hunt against someone who's a good man, regardless of how you feel about his politics. Yeah, that would've been a brilliant move. 😏

PatriotOne
02-09-2017, 02:04 PM
You obviously haven't seen Sessions' track record of doing very bad things (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504307-Why-Sessions-will-likely-be-an-awful-AG&highlight=sessions)

Well since he's AG now he won't be voting on bills anymore and you should be glad. He's a good decent man and he won't be protecting the past criminals in charge. That was basically the job of the AG's of Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama/Clinton's. To protect THEM while they ran drugs, humans, arms, and organs.

PatriotOne
02-09-2017, 02:34 PM
I'm depending on Rand Paul to bring people like Sessions and Trump up to date on issues like civil asset forfeiture and marijuana.



I hope that conversation takes place AFTER they get back all the money the criminals in charge for the past several decades. SIEZE ALL THEIR ASSETS THEY STOLE FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. All those terrible laws they put in place is a double edged sword. I hope they get sliced and diced with said sword and fed to the dogs. Hoist them up with their own petard they built. Then change the law :-).

Origanalist
02-09-2017, 02:55 PM
I hope that conversation takes place AFTER they get back all the money the criminals in charge for the past several decades. SIEZE ALL THEIR ASSETS THEY STOLE FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. All those terrible laws they put in place is a double edged sword. I hope they get sliced and diced with said sword and fed to the dogs. Hoist them up with their own petard they built. Then change the law :-).


Hope in one hand, shit in the other.

Origanalist
02-09-2017, 03:01 PM
I'm depending on Rand Paul to bring people like Sessions and Trump up to date on issues like civil asset forfeiture and marijuana.

What was the likelihood that Trump was ever going to appoint someone who agrees with us on such issues? I'd guess none whatsoever. Meanwhile, Sessions has stood by the Constitution on some other issues - much more so than anyone a democrat would prefer.

When the time comes, I have every expectation that Rand will stand up and fight for changes - putting a realistic face on drug use - as opposed to the lazy/hippy/criminal stereotypes from the 70's, which old man Sessions probably still has in his head.

While Trump's recent comments about civil asset forfeiture were awful, he appeared to believe it is something used primarily against drug cartels. This makes me doubt he has any idea how often civil asset forfeiture has been abused for profit, used against ordinary people who can't fight back regardless of innocence. We all know there are hundreds (at least!) of instances Rand could site to drive home this point and It will be up to him to ensure that the truth is exposed and help make the case against it's constitutionality.

When Rand argues against bad policies, I surmise that competing arguments (and votes) will not break down along typical party lines. He will have reliable Republicans on his side and possibly, all or most Democrats (seeing as most dems will only care about demonstrating how anti-Sessions or anti-Trump they are ;)).

You really think Trump doesn't understand civil asset forfeiture? I find that extremely hard to believe.

robert68
02-09-2017, 03:05 PM
Matt seemed to be politically smart and realistic at one time. Not so much anymore apparently.

You have that backwards.

PatriotOne
02-09-2017, 03:10 PM
Hope in one hand, $#@! in the other.

Sessions sworn in and then Trump signs 3 executive orders in Sessions presence... Coincidence? I think not ;-).

"I'm signing three executive actions today designed to restore safety in America," Trump said, adding he was fulfilling another campaign promise. "I am directing DOJ and DHS to take all necessary action to break the backs of criminal cartels that have spread across our nation."*

Drops mike.

Brett85
02-09-2017, 03:25 PM
Rand got all kinds of criticism from the right for voting against Pompeo, now so called libertarians say they will no longer support him because he voted to confirm his friend and colleague, Jeff Sessions. Really, if I were Rand I would just want to quit the Senate and go back to his medical practice. There's no point of fighting for people who are completely ungrateful for what he's done in the Senate. I would truly hate to be him and try to deal with so many irrational and unreasonable people. The liberty movement has been a dying movement for quite some time anyway, but yet I guess the goal is to make it as small as it can possibly be by condemning the one guy in the Senate who actually fights for liberty every single day. Good luck with that.

Peace&Freedom
02-09-2017, 03:58 PM
There was also a political witch hunt going on against Sessions by the Democrats, claiming he was a racist when no such evidence ever existed. So let's see. Rand was going to give up all of the political capital he had and be the only Republican to join the left in a political witch hunt against someone who's a good man, regardless of how you feel about his politics. Yeah, that would've been a brilliant move. ��

Indeed, Sen Warren's last ditch attempt to bust Sessions as a racist has just been busted, with the surfacing of this video, showing Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr. praising Sessions:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jHzIZRI9mo

Valli6
02-09-2017, 04:29 PM
You really think Trump doesn't understand civil asset forfeiture? I find that extremely hard to believe.
It's possible he's never heard a discussion of how it's used wrongly. It's one of those things that the media/politicians really never discuss, certainly not in any depth. When it is mentioned, it's always made to sound like it's something that's only used against "obvious" drug dealers and would never be abused because - you know, that would just be so obviously wrong it could never happen, right? :rolleyes:

To tell you the truth, if I hadn't become interested in Ron Paul, I don't think I ever would have had reason to hear about civil asset forfeiture or how it's used frivolously and leaves innocent victims with no options for redress. (Unless of course, it happened to me! me! me! - which is when any given thing starts to matter most. ;))

Origanalist
02-09-2017, 04:54 PM
Sessions sworn in and then Trump signs 3 executive orders in Sessions presence... Coincidence? I think not ;-).

"I'm signing three executive actions today designed to restore safety in America," Trump said, adding he was fulfilling another campaign promise. "I am directing DOJ and DHS to take all necessary action to break the backs of criminal cartels that have spread across our nation."*

Drops mike.

Im using the phone at work but when I get to a computer I'm pretty sure you're going to have to pick that Mike up again.

Jesse James
02-09-2017, 05:10 PM
Ron Paul would have voted NO. Period.
you're going to have to remind me when Ron was a senator..

euphemia
02-09-2017, 05:46 PM
Trump's team came in before the deadline and under budget. Because of the dems' heel dragging, we are into February with no AG. At some point we need to get everyone confirmed and let them make their own mistakes. I think Spicer and maybe Conway will be out the door before long if they don't watch out. Trump has no problem hiring people. Conway is just too chatty for her own good.

Matt Collins
02-09-2017, 07:23 PM
Well since he's AG now he won't be voting on bills anymore and you should be glad. He's a good decent man No, he is not. A good and decent man would not have the voting record that he does.


and he won't be protecting the past criminals in charge. That was basically the job of the AG's of Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama/Clinton's. To protect THEM while they ran drugs, humans, arms, and organs.Of course he will be doing whatever he has to in order to protect the federal government. But remember, he pretty much voted for an supported the previous crooks in office.

Matt Collins
02-09-2017, 07:30 PM
Matt seemed to be politically smart and realistic at one time. Not so much anymore apparently.
huh?:confused:

Rudeman
02-09-2017, 08:30 PM
Rand has stated before that he gives leeway on confirming cabinet positions. He did the same thing with Obama. So this basically hyper-sensitive outrage. Trump won the presidency, he should have some leeway in selecting his cabinet. That's not to say you can't oppose Sessions but to blame Rand for voting for him is pretty silly. I mean if we were to extrapolate the same logic, Rand/Ron anyone libertarian would never get any of their cabinet appointees through Congress if they won the Presidency.

jmdrake
02-09-2017, 08:39 PM
Of course he wasn't going to vote against a Senator from his own party for a cabinet position. To do so would've been unprecedented and would've accomplished nothing. Would Christie or Giuliani as AG have been better? Of course not, and one of them would've been confirmed as AG had Sessions been blocked.

Correct

Superfluous Man
02-09-2017, 09:25 PM
Good for Rand. Sessions is a good man. He's not going after YOUR freedoms. He's going after the freedoms of child, drug, weapon and organ harvester's freedoms within our own government.

Yeah right. I'm sure that whenever we white people break any laws, he'll let it slide. His long voting record of going after all of our freedoms may well be no indication that he will continue to do so as AG.

What do child, drug, and weapon harvesting involve though? And who are some of the people in our own government involved in child, drug, and weapon harvesting?

Matt Collins
02-09-2017, 09:30 PM
He could have abstained with zero consequence which would have still allowed him not to have this stain on his voting record.

Superfluous Man
02-09-2017, 09:30 PM
Of course he wasn't going to vote against a Senator from his own party for a cabinet position. To do so would've been unprecedented and would've accomplished nothing. Would Christie or Giuliani as AG have been better? Of course not, and one of them would've been confirmed as AG had Sessions been blocked.

I agree.

Rand has blocked some appointments. But he's picking his battles. He's trying to make a difference when it actually makes a difference.

euphemia
02-09-2017, 10:05 PM
Stain? Please.

Confirm the man. Give him a chance to work. Some of the people who testified before the committee really like the way Sessions works, and thought he brought out their best work. That's hard to overlook.

Origanalist
02-09-2017, 11:13 PM
Rand has stated before that he gives leeway on confirming cabinet positions. He did the same thing with Obama. So this basically hyper-sensitive outrage. Trump won the presidency, he should have some leeway in selecting his cabinet. That's not to say you can't oppose Sessions but to blame Rand for voting for him is pretty silly. I mean if we were to extrapolate the same logic, Rand/Ron anyone libertarian would never get any of their cabinet appointees through Congress if they won the Presidency.

I agree.

Origanalist
02-09-2017, 11:19 PM
Sessions sworn in and then Trump signs 3 executive orders in Sessions presence... Coincidence? I think not ;-).

"I'm signing three executive actions today designed to restore safety in America," Trump said, adding he was fulfilling another campaign promise. "I am directing DOJ and DHS to take all necessary action to break the backs of criminal cartels that have spread across our nation."*

Drops mike.

I hope you didn't break it.


"I'm signing three executive actions today designed to restore safety in America," Trump said, adding he was fulfilling another campaign promise. "I am directing DOJ and DHS to take all necessary action to break the backs of criminal cartels that have spread across our nation."

In other words escalating the failed war on drugs, guaranteed to take away more of our liberties.


Additionally, Trump announced a directive for DOJ to convene a task force against violent crime and to come up with a plan to combat violence against law enforcement officers.

Is violent crime up? And really, does "law enforcement" really need any more protection?

And you're saying this is all good somehow?

Feeding the Abscess
02-09-2017, 11:41 PM
Rand has stated before that he gives leeway on confirming cabinet positions. He did the same thing with Obama. So this basically hyper-sensitive outrage. Trump won the presidency, he should have some leeway in selecting his cabinet. That's not to say you can't oppose Sessions but to blame Rand for voting for him is pretty silly. I mean if we were to extrapolate the same logic, Rand/Ron anyone libertarian would never get any of their cabinet appointees through Congress if they won the Presidency.

He opposed Loretta Lynch's cabinet appointment on the basis of her civil asset forfeiture advocacy.

jct74
02-09-2017, 11:49 PM
Democratic Attacks on Sessions Influenced Rand Paul’s Vote
But the Kentucky Republican is concerned about DOJ under Trump

Niels Lesniewski
Feb 9, 2017

Sen. Rand Paul voted to confirm Jeff Sessions as President Donald Trump’s attorney general, but that doesn’t mean the Kentucky Republican with libertarian leanings doesn’t have real concerns about how Sessions will run the Justice Department.

And he thinks it will be more difficult to make progress on a criminal justice overhaul with a Trump-Sessions DOJ.

“In some ways, the Democrats made it much more certain that I would vote for him, by trying to destroy his character. I think to me it’s very upsetting that they didn’t choose to go after him on particular issues like civil asset forfeiture, where they might have been able to persuade someone like me,” Paul said Thursday. “They chose to go after him, and try to destroy a man’s character.”

...

The Kentucky Republican said going forward he has a list of items to discuss with Trump, including government policies toward forfeiture of assets in legal proceedings prior to any sort of conviction.

“I think civil asset forfeiture is a terrible idea until you’ve convicted someone, and I’d like to have that discussion with the president. I’ve had that discussion with Sen. Sessions, and I think some of the things we’ve done particularly to poor people — poor people in our country deal in cash,” Paul said. “I think in order to take someone’s money from them, the government ought to prove it was ill-gotten.”

...

read more:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/rand-paul-democratic-attacks-sessions-influenced-vote

Rudeman
02-10-2017, 05:01 AM
He opposed Loretta Lynch's cabinet appointment on the basis of her civil asset forfeiture advocacy.

What is your point? That Rand supports civil asset forfeiture? Clearly he doesn't (as the article above mentions). Rand has already voted against Pompeo (at the time he was the only Republican to vote against a Trump cabinet appointee), he has publicly denied potential AG picks and the other day he came out against Abrams.


Maybe just maybe he had other reasons to support Sessions? Everything isn't a purely black or white issue. It's weird that libertarians love to shit on each other over impurities instead of welcoming those who lean libertarian. It constantly has to be a pissing match over purity.

jllundqu
02-10-2017, 10:42 AM
you're going to have to remind me when Ron was a senator..

Don't be a smartass. We all know he was in the house. I'm simply stating as a matter of principle.

Brett85
02-10-2017, 10:52 AM
As a result of Rand voting to confirm Sessions as AG, Sessions will now be more willing to listen to Rand when he voices his concerns about protecting civil liberties. Had Rand voted against Sessions, then Sessions would simply disregard anything Rand says in the future. But of course libertarians don't believe in being practical and will never consider those kinds of practical implications.

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 11:19 AM
Stain? Please.

Confirm the man. Give him a chance to work. Some of the people who testified before the committee really like the way Sessions works, and thought he brought out their best work. That's hard to overlook.That doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is his adherence to the Constitution, and he has failed miserably at that as a Senator.

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 11:20 AM
Rand has blocked some appointments. But he's picking his battles. He's trying to make a difference when it actually makes a difference.His vote wouldn't have made a difference here, which is all the more reason to abstain or vote no.

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 11:20 AM
As a result of Rand voting to confirm Sessions as AG, Sessions will now be more willing to listen to Rand when he voices his concerns about protecting civil liberties. HA HA HA HA HA!

What world are you living in, because it isn't the real one



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

Brett85
02-10-2017, 11:43 AM
That doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is his adherence to the Constitution, and he has failed miserably at that as a Senator.

And Giuliani or Christie would be better when it comes to upholding the Constitution? Those were the alternatives had Sessions been blocked.

Brett85
02-10-2017, 11:47 AM
HA HA HA HA HA!

What world are you living in, because it isn't the real one



I'm the one living in the real world. You're the one who doesn't believe in being practical. You think that Rand somehow could get
away with joining the Democrats and rewarding their despicable race baiting. Rand would've been seen as the enemy by the entire right wing of the Republican Party if he had voted against Sessions. Rand is a Republican Senator. If he were to be completely independent he would have to run for office as an independent or as a Libertarian.

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 12:21 PM
And Giuliani or Christie would be better when it comes to upholding the Constitution? Those were the alternatives had Sessions been blocked.Rand wasn't really in a position to block Sessions, unless Cruz and Lee joined in which would be doubtful.

Brett85
02-10-2017, 12:32 PM
Rand wasn't really in a position to block Sessions, unless Cruz and Lee joined in which would be doubtful.

Then what would Rand voting against Sessions have actually accomplished? All it would've done is cause the entire right wing of the Republican Party to hate him, and make him lose influence with his fellow Republican Senators, making it harder for him to get their support on things like his Obamacare replacement plan.

MallsRGood
02-10-2017, 12:34 PM
Sessions is terrible (and not because of the racial nonsense), but I can see why Rand would do this.

He couldn't have changed the outcome here (unlike with Abrams, e.g.), so the only issue was PR.

And, PR-wise, opposing Sessions would have been counterproductive IMO.

Rand is getting lots of kudos from the **********s for opposing Abrams (whom they also dislike).

As he got kudos for opposing Krispy, 'Stache, and The Ghoul.

But if Rand opposes every terrible Trump nomination, esp. ones that the **********s like, he's just going to isolated himself.

Trump must further discredit himself with his base before they'll be receptive to more vigorous opposition.

P.S. Wow, the word combining Trump and chimpanzee has been banned?

Let's see if Cuck or Losertarian has been banned...

P.P.S. Nope...

How 'bout that...:rolleyes:

Superfluous Man
02-10-2017, 12:44 PM
His vote wouldn't have made a difference here, which is all the more reason to abstain or vote no.

Maybe. I'm not sure what I would have done in his shoes. But the opposite case can be made. There would be a definite political cost for voting no or abstaining, while still accomplishing nothing.

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 01:16 PM
I'm the one living in the real world. You're the one who doesn't believe in being practical. You think that Rand somehow could get
away with joining the Democrats and rewarding their despicable race baiting. Rand would've been seen as the enemy by the entire right wing of the Republican Party if he had voted against Sessions. Rand is a Republican Senator. If he were to be completely independent he would have to run for office as an independent or as a Libertarian.He could have abstained from the vote without any consequence.

Sticking to principle means sticking to principle regardless of the political circumstances. Otherwise it isn't being principled.

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 01:18 PM
There would be a definite political cost for voting no or abstaining, while still accomplishing nothing.There wouldn't have been a cost for abstaining or being absent during that particular vote.

MallsRGood
02-10-2017, 02:35 PM
Sticking to principle means sticking to principle regardless of the political circumstances. Otherwise it isn't being principled.

The guiding principle for a libertarian should be "always do what most advances the libertarian cause,"

not "always publicly oppose unlibertarian things [even if doing so is counterproductive to the libertarian cause]."

Krugminator2
02-10-2017, 04:00 PM
Sticking to principle means sticking to principle regardless of the political circumstances. Otherwise it isn't being principled.

Sure it is. If part of your principles is actually increasing liberty as opposed to theoretical internet liberty, then choosing the strategy that maximizes liberty is the principled answer.

A good example is endorsing Mitch McConnell. The theoretical internet "principled" answer was he shouldn't endorse McConnell. The smart person answer was to endorse him. Endorsing turned out to be single best decision from a liberty perspective Rand has made. The political payoff was ridiculously skewed.

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 04:30 PM
The guiding principle for a libertarian should be "always do what most advances the libertarian cause,"

not "always publicly oppose unlibertarian things [even if doing so is counterproductive to the libertarian cause]."You obviously didnt read all of my post... it would have been perfectly acceptable for Rand to have abstained from the vote.

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 04:32 PM
Sure it is. If part of your principles is actually increasing liberty as opposed to theoretical internet liberty, then choosing the strategy that maximizes liberty is the principled answer.Voting for Sessions doesn't increase liberty at all, and in fact it undermines the movement because it deflates morale.




A good example is endorsing Mitch McConnell. The theoretical internet "principled" answer was he shouldn't endorse McConnell. The smart person answer was to endorse him. Endorsing turned out to be single best decision from a liberty perspective Rand has made. The political payoff was ridiculously skewed.And the cost of that, this, and some of his other stunts were a completely piss poor showing in the Presidential primary.

Brett85
02-10-2017, 05:15 PM
He could have abstained from the vote without any consequence.

Sticking to principle means sticking to principle regardless of the political circumstances. Otherwise it isn't being principled.

Abstaining from the vote would've been the most cowardly and least principled thing he could've done.

He would've been criticized by both libertarians and the Republican base if he had done that.

Rudeman
02-10-2017, 08:59 PM
The guiding principle for a libertarian should be "always do what most advances the libertarian cause,"

not "always publicly oppose unlibertarian things [even if doing so is counterproductive to the libertarian cause]."


Sure it is. If part of your principles is actually increasing liberty as opposed to theoretical internet liberty, then choosing the strategy that maximizes liberty is the principled answer.

A good example is endorsing Mitch McConnell. The theoretical internet "principled" answer was he shouldn't endorse McConnell. The smart person answer was to endorse him. Endorsing turned out to be single best decision from a liberty perspective Rand has made. The political payoff was ridiculously skewed.


Abstaining from the vote would've been the most cowardly and least principled thing he could've done.

He would've been criticized by both libertarians and the Republican base if he had done that.


Thanks for providing some common sense to this thread.

jkob
02-10-2017, 09:35 PM
Rand didn't really have a choice, voting against Sessions would hurt his career far more than it would help. The other names that were floated around for AG were even worse

Matt Collins
02-10-2017, 09:49 PM
Abstaining from the vote would've been the most cowardly and least principled thing he could've done.

He would've been criticized by both libertarians and the Republican base if he had done that.Not if he communicated about his reasoning in a way that neutralized any criticism.

loveshiscountry
02-10-2017, 10:18 PM
Good people don't smoke marijuana

Edibles :cool:

gaazn
02-11-2017, 01:05 AM
Instead of being Dr Yes, he couldve been Dr No 2.0 and primaried Trump. Technology, Ron Paul, and Bernie shows that its possible to run against the establisment without big money donors. Sure you can say its great that trump is nation building back home, but some big moves so far are moves toward more police state.

Brett85
02-11-2017, 08:04 AM
Instead of being Dr Yes, he couldve been Dr No 2.0 and primaried Trump. Technology, Ron Paul, and Bernie shows that its possible to run against the establisment without big money donors. Sure you can say its great that trump is nation building back home, but some big moves so far are moves toward more police state.

Sessions is seen by conservatives as being anti establishment. Rand voting against Sessions wouldn't be seen by conservatives as being "anti establishment." It would've just been seen as a betrayal and a liberal vote.

jonhowe
02-11-2017, 09:36 AM
I hope you didn't break it.



In other words escalating the failed war on drugs, guaranteed to take away more of our liberties.



Is violent crime up? And really, does "law enforcement" really need any more protection?

And you're saying this is all good somehow?


Sessions says drug sales/use are violent crimes, remember.

Krugminator2
02-11-2017, 10:55 AM
Instead of being Dr Yes, he couldve been Dr No 2.0 and primaried Trump. Technology, Ron Paul, and Bernie shows that its possible to run against the establisment without big money donors. Sure you can say its great that trump is nation building back home, but some big moves so far are moves toward more police state.

One, Rand has bucked Trump more times than any Republican so far. He voted against his budget and Pompeo. And he pledged to vote against Trump nominees in committee which would make him the only Republican to do so. He has no chance of primarying Trump.

Last I checked, Ron got a distant 4th in an extremely weak Republican field. Does 4th place winning zero states win a prize? The guy who won the Iowa Caucus in 2012 got less than 1% in the 2016 field. I am not sure the lesson to be learned there.

Bernie Sanders did win 23 states. Jesse Jackson won 11 states. Jerry Brown was runner-up to Bill Clinton. . All that shows is the Democratic base is made up of Communists who are thirsting for a vehicle to express their insane views. I'm sure Warren will do very well if she runs.

timosman
02-13-2017, 01:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slcr5Sqzdzw

KingNothing
02-13-2017, 03:00 PM
What do you want from an AG?

He has an obligation to justly enforce the laws as they are written. In that position, I want a man of unwavering morality and integrity. By all accounts, Sessions fits that bill.

What I also want is for the laws he's asked to enforce be limited and Libertarian in nature. That, however, is not on him. It is on Congress, the president, and our judges to decide.

P3ter_Griffin
02-13-2017, 03:58 PM
What do you want from an AG?

He has an obligation to justly enforce the laws as they are written. In that position, I want a man of unwavering morality and integrity. By all accounts, Sessions fits that bill.

What I also want is for the laws he's asked to enforce be limited and Libertarian in nature. That, however, is not on him. It is on Congress, the president, and our judges to decide.

I haven't seen any constitutional amendments on the prohibition of drugs. Nor on the regulation of immigration. Nor one striking down the 4th.


"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."

Matt Collins
02-13-2017, 06:56 PM
What do you want from an AG?

He has an obligation to justly enforce the laws as they are written. Only if they are Constitutional.

Brett85
02-13-2017, 09:28 PM
Only if they are Constitutional.

It's an abuse of executive power for the President/Attorney General to just decide on their own which laws are Constitutional and which are unconstitutional. Now, it's true that resources are scarce and there isn't enough money for the AG to be able to enforce all the laws on the books. So he has some amount of prosecutorial discretion in that regard. But, the AG can't just decide on his own that he won't enforce certain laws because he personally thinks they're unconstitutional.

Matt Collins
02-13-2017, 09:41 PM
It's an abuse of executive power for the President/Attorney General to just decide on their own which laws are Constitutional and which are unconstitutional. Now, it's true that resources are scarce and there isn't enough money for the AG to be able to enforce all the laws on the books. So he has some amount of prosecutorial discretion in that regard. But, the AG can't just decide on his own that he won't enforce certain laws because he personally thinks they're unconstitutional.

Wrong. They took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. If they enforce unconstitutional laws then they are violating their oath. It is their duty to obey the Constitution.

KingNothing
02-14-2017, 08:37 AM
Only if they are Constitutional.

A law is Constitutional until it is ruled unconstitutional.

That's how this legal system works. It is patently obvious that we have a slew of laws that should be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. However, until the courts make such a ruling, those laws stand. We can gnash our teeth all we want, but it has no practical impact on the state of our country.

Given that, I'll gladly take an AG who isn't in the pocket of Wall Street / Soros / RNC / DNC. If he does nothing but clamp down on pedo rings, prosecute people in power who break the law, and refrain from really go all-out wrt to the War on Drugs, I will be happy.

Okie RP fan
02-14-2017, 09:41 AM
He always said he would. Not a big fan of him engaging in party bull$#@!, I guess he has to pick his battles.

Yea, that's the excuse we've been using with Rand for years now.
I like Rand, but like I said, we've been saying that. And what is it doing for him, or for liberty?

Ron didn't settle. Albeit, he didn't have a position in the Senate, he still didn't settle.

And that video in post 73, Biden is such a creep. Why did the media never cover all of his pervy moves and tendencies that have been decently documented? Oh, that's right… He's a Democrat and was second in command to their messiah.

WTLaw
02-14-2017, 10:48 AM
It is obviously the correct move, politically.

By voting to confirm, Rand does not give away the right to oppose civil asset forfeiture, or the drug war, or any of numerous areas where they had disagreements. And I know, given his record, that Rand will fight on the individual issues when they arise, and often, agitate to make sure they arise more often.

But what I do not expect of Rand, is the political equivalent of Pickets Charge, or Culloden...fighting on principle when any damn fool can see it aint gonna work on that day and in that way. The founders too, bid their time...until it was time.

Here we are, in the early days of a dead duck administration, and Rand is maneuvering to try and help the good guys pick up the pieces...he is doing about the best we can expect given the situation.

A lot of people on the internet like to make Gandhi poses, talk about principle and such, but thats all really cheap and worthless for getting us more freedom. Politics is dirty, and we need some people to get down in the muck for liberty....as much or more than we need people at Mises to sell more audiolectures.

Brian4Liberty
02-14-2017, 01:26 PM
Rand responds:


Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rankled many libertarians with his vote to confirm unreconstructed drug warrior and criminal justice reform opponent Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Last night, the libertarian-leaning senator answered those critics and explained his vote on Fox Business Network's Kennedy program:

"I think personal considerations; I've known him for a long time. I didn't like the way Democrats vilified and tried to create him into some sort of racist monster, which is not who he is. So the fact that they used character assassination, I didn't want to be associated with that.

But I can tell people, libertarians across the country, that there is no stronger voice in the U.S. Senate for opposing militarization of the police, opposing the drug war, opposing the surveillance state. And so if people want to apply a purity test to me they're more than welcome, but I would suggest that maybe they spend some of their time on the other 99 less libertarian senators."
...
More: https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/14/rand-paul-to-libertarians-critical-of-hi

Brett85
02-14-2017, 04:15 PM
A law is Constitutional until it is ruled unconstitutional.

That's how this legal system works. It is patently obvious that we have a slew of laws that should be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. However, until the courts make such a ruling, those laws stand. We can gnash our teeth all we want, but it has no practical impact on the state of our country.

Yep.

Brett85
02-14-2017, 04:18 PM
Yea, that's the excuse we've been using with Rand for years now.
I like Rand, but like I said, we've been saying that. And what is it doing for him, or for liberty?

Ron didn't settle. Albeit, he didn't have a position in the Senate, he still didn't settle.

Towards the end of his career, Ron endorsed all of the incumbents in the state of Texas, including Lamar Smith, the author of CISPA. Ron also voted for Gingrich as speaker every year that he was in the house. Those are both things that purist libertarians would disagree with. Ron wasn't 100% "pure" either. Nobody is.

Krugminator2
02-14-2017, 05:26 PM
Yea, that's the excuse we've been using with Rand for years now.
I like Rand, but like I said, we've been saying that. And what is it doing for him, or for liberty?

Ron didn't settle. Albeit, he didn't have a position in the Senate, he still didn't settle.



Good point. Ron would never do something politically pragmatic and then use an "excuse" to justify it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/ron-paul-texas-federal-spending-pork

PierzStyx
02-14-2017, 05:48 PM
Rand didn't really have a choice, voting against Sessions would hurt his career far more than it would help. The other names that were floated around for AG were even worse

Too bad he thought more of his career and position than he did defending liberty. That is the very definition of a coward.

PierzStyx
02-14-2017, 05:53 PM
Good point. Ron would never do something politically pragmatic and then use an "excuse" to justify it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/ron-paul-texas-federal-spending-pork

Did you seriously just quote a leftist rag like Mother Jones? Really?

Instead of reading a giant hit piece designed to attack Dr. Paul why don't we listen to his own words about his philosophy on earmarks?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORJlza7iDAY


Trying to get your money back form the government that stole it? Makes sense to me.

Perhaps if you stopped listening to Leftists you would understand libertarianism better.

PierzStyx
02-14-2017, 05:56 PM
A law is Constitutional until it is ruled unconstitutional.

No it isn't.

That's how this legal system works. It is patently obvious that we have a slew of laws that should be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. However, until the courts make such a ruling, those laws stand. We can gnash our teeth all we want, but it has no practical impact on the state of our country.

Look up "nullification." Understand that you can nullify laws by practicing civil disobedience. The only reason bad laws have any effect are people like you who enforce them on the masses with guns drawn and ready.

Given that, I'll gladly take an AG who isn't in the pocket of Wall Street / Soros / RNC / DNC. If he does nothing but clamp down on pedo rings, prosecute people in power who break the law, and refrain from really go all-out wrt to the War on Drugs, I will be happy.

Good to know you live in La-La Land.

Krugminator2
02-14-2017, 06:47 PM
Trying to get your money back form the government that stole it? Makes sense to me.

Perhaps if you stopped listening to Leftists you would understand libertarianism better.



I have heard his answer plenty of times. Ron is wrong from a libertarian perspective on this. He is the only libertarian (excluding those in Ron Paul's orbit) who takes this position. For one thing, it is bad economics. Government spending isn't a fixed pie like Ron Paul believes that just runs out once all the tax dollars get spent. Earmarks create larger spending bills and a bigger pie. It is the same bad argument that I once heard from I think Walter Block that taking Social Security means government will somehow have less money to spend on more nefarious things like war. That's wrong.

Most importantly, earmarks grease the wheels of Congress. It is how legislation gets passed. The earmark ban in 2011 has made it more difficult to pass legislation and it creates gridlock. Actual libertarians like gridlock. It has helped keep spending down.

Maybe have fewer opinions on issues you know nothing about. K thx.

Matt Collins
02-14-2017, 09:13 PM
A law is Constitutional until it is ruled unconstitutional.
Wrong.

If Congress passed a law tomorrow that says "put Jews in concentration camps" and it took a while for a court to get around to deciding it, the law is still unconstitutional.

Most federal laws are in fact unconstitutional whether a court rules them so or not.

Matt Collins
02-14-2017, 09:14 PM
By voting to confirm, Rand does not give away the right to oppose civil asset forfeiture, or the drug war, or any of numerous areas where they had disagreements.The two are not mutually exclusive. By abstaining, or voting against, he would still have the right to oppose those things.

Matt Collins
02-14-2017, 09:15 PM
Towards the end of his career, Ron endorsed all of the incumbents in the state of TexasThat is very true. But the takeaway is that endorsements don't really mean anything...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms

fr33
02-14-2017, 09:39 PM
That is very true. But the takeaway is that endorsements don't really mean anything...




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms
Yeah well that plan didn't accomplish anything either.

Brett85
02-14-2017, 11:01 PM
That is very true. But the takeaway is that endorsements don't really mean anything...

Then why does voting for a President's cabinet nominees mean anything?

KingNothing
02-15-2017, 11:40 AM
Wrong.

If Congress passed a law tomorrow that says "put Jews in concentration camps" and it took a while for a court to get around to deciding it, the law is still unconstitutional.

Most federal laws are in fact unconstitutional whether a court rules them so or not.

Look, I agree -- philosophically, there are a ton of things that are currently considered law that are unconstitutional. However, this is an entirely meaningless thing to say. Until the judicial branch rules that a law is not allowed under our constitution, the law stands.

Matt Collins
02-15-2017, 12:35 PM
Until the judicial branch rules that a law is not allowed under our constitution, the law stands.Oh yeah, no disagreement there. But a standing law can still be unconstitutional even if it hasn't been ruled as such. And really, it is no law at all and should not be followed. Unfortunately though most government officials are cowards.

Matt Collins
02-15-2017, 12:35 PM
Then why does voting for a President's cabinet nominees mean anything?Because they are putting someone in power. Endorsements don't win elections. Voting for someone as a legislator does indeed win elections. And yes, Ron was wrong to vote for the previous speakers too.

PierzStyx
02-15-2017, 05:40 PM
I have heard his answer plenty of times. Ron is wrong from a libertarian perspective on this. He is the only libertarian (excluding those in Ron Paul's orbit) who takes this position. For one thing, it is bad economics. Government spending isn't a fixed pie like Ron Paul believes that just runs out once all the tax dollars get spent. Earmarks create larger spending bills and a bigger pie. It is the same bad argument that I once heard from I think Walter Block that taking Social Security means government will somehow have less money to spend on more nefarious things like war. That's wrong.

Most importantly, earmarks grease the wheels of Congress. It is how legislation gets passed. The earmark ban in 2011 has made it more difficult to pass legislation and it creates gridlock. Actual libertarians like gridlock. It has helped keep spending down.

Maybe have fewer opinions on issues you know nothing about. K thx.

1. So you acknowledge that you actually misrepresented Ron Paul's views in order to push your own agenda before we talk about the wholly different subject of if he was correct or not? Good.

2. Ron obviously isn't the only libertarian engaging in similar thinking if Walter Block is doing so.

The bigger issue those is you misunderstand him. He isn't treating government spending as a large fixed pie. It isn't about the government pie at all really. Watch the video again. He clearly shows that his focus is on what is being taken from his district and trying to get back what is taken. Imagine it like this: Three guys jump you and take your bike. A week later you see them lock your bike up against a light pole and go into a food joint. You have a pair of wire cutters. Is it stealing to get your bike back? No. I sit stealing to get the money take from your district back? No. If the only way he can do that is following the appearance of something wrong, that is to say appropriating money for his district (like you cutting the chain on a bike lock) then he will do it.

Now there are criticism to this. You have to ask if he is getting more than is taken and how does he know that. But the theory makes sense.

Krugminator2
02-15-2017, 07:20 PM
1. So you acknowledge that you actually misrepresented Ron Paul's views

2. Ron obviously isn't the only libertarian engaging in similar thinking if Walter Block is doing so.

The bigger issue those is you misunderstand him.

But the theory makes sense.

1. Didn't misrepresent his views.
2. Walter Block is in his orbit.
3. Didn't misunderstand his views. Have heard him explain this numerous times.
4. No. His reasoning doesn't make sense if you like reduced government spending.