PDA

View Full Version : Should Rand Challenge Trump For The 2020 GOP Nomination?




r3volution 3.0
08-22-2017, 06:10 PM
http://i3.cpcache.com/product/1725421202/rand_paul_2020_bumper_stickers.jpg?width=750&height=750&Filters=%5B%7B%22name%22%3A%22background%22%2C%22v alue%22%3A%22F2F2F2%22%2C%22sequence%22%3A2%7D%5D

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 06:20 PM
Dump needs pressure to keep him from drifting left even if we don't win.

Here is my list of who should run:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index
Idaho

Dist.1: Raul Labrador (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000573) - 91%

Kentucky

Sen. Rand Paul (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000603) - 93%

Dist.4: Thomas Massie (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001184) - 98%

Utah

Sen. Mike Lee (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000577) - 92%

Michigan

Dist.3: Justin Amash (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=A000367) - 94%


I am open to suggestions.

...

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 06:21 PM
Paul/Massie 2020

enhanced_deficit
08-22-2017, 06:27 PM
This is 2017, wrong question at the wrong time.

At this stage, RP should stay clear of any such public talk and focus on "serving people" and even strategically where feasible push Trump to expose/scrutinize/weaken fakenews media, neocon lobbies, ISIS's founding father's political slave masters etc.





Related

Rand Paul: Let's Destroy ISIS — Not the Constitution
time.com/4140983/rand-paul-isis-constitution/

Rand Ties Benghazi Annex to Gun Running to Syria (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499385-Rand-Ties-Benghazi-Annex-to-Gun-Running-to-Syria&)

Rand Paul: "Look Where ISIS Gets Its Weapons From"
Nov 6, 2015

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/icons/icon14.png Trump Ends Covert Obama-era CIA Program Which Sent Arms To Jihadists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513085-Trump-Ends-Covert-Obama-era-CIA-Program-Which-Sent-Arms-To-Jihadists&)

http://crooksandliars.com/files/mediaposters/2016/08/34188.jpg
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Henry+Kissinger+Obama+Biden+Meet+Congressional+-4LQGB2_3c1l.jpg

Days after Kissinger warned against removing ISIS, it claims Spain Van attack killing 13 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514132-Days-after-Kissinger-warned-against-removing-ISIS-it-claims-Spain-Van-attack-killing-13&)

Natural Citizen
08-22-2017, 06:31 PM
Yes. Challenge every single time possible. Every single time. You can't win if you never learn how to lose nice and good. Lose over and over and over and over and over again until you win. Maybe you won't ever win. But don't say you didn't try to win every single chance you had the opportunity to try.

He's got my money and efforts.

And really we should have some kind of elevated site-wide effort kind of like the good old days when Ron was in it.

Only thing is, and I hate to say it, we have to be selective about who gets to do what when and where. Maybe a grassroots informational/ad based web site detached from this forum, perhaps. One with no platform for public commentary. We have people with mad skills here who can get it done right. Maybe try to train and send competent delegates nation-wide again.

Sorry, that's my view on it. But we're often our biggest liability. We don't always act right. And I'm included in that. I'm no angel either, admittedly.

I've linked friends to our site only to have them come back at me that they thought we were a bunch of anti-government, reckless, vigilante, cowboys, after only reading a few posts here. They kind of got scared away because they thought that Rand and Ron thought the way random people do on the Internet. Crazy stuff.

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2017, 06:33 PM
This is 2017

The general election will be November 2020.

The party conventions will be summer 2020.

The primaries will start at the end of 2019.

People will announce their candidacy summer of 2019.

People planning to run will need to make a decision (privately) in the spring of 2019, at the latest.

That gives us about a year and a half.

spudea
08-22-2017, 06:34 PM
A pipe dream. What evidence has shown he has any willingness or can expand his level of support and popularity?

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 06:41 PM
Two morons said NO.

Pitiful.

uncharted
08-22-2017, 06:44 PM
r3volution 3.0,

Yes. That said, with Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Mark Zuckerberg, and possibly Chris Kennedy. I reckon that Trump would be the least of his concerns.

dannno
08-22-2017, 06:52 PM
If there are any other challengers, then absolutely he should. If it means stepping up to Donald Trump one on one, well, that's a choice Rand will have to make. Does he want to spend his political capital that way? If he thinks it is a good decision, I'd support him without hesitation.

Anti Federalist
08-22-2017, 06:54 PM
Yes, without question or hesitation.

Feeding the Abscess
08-22-2017, 07:06 PM
Not if he's going to support creating new nations and arming other established nations, like last go 'round.

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2017, 07:11 PM
@r3volution 3.0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58077),

Yes. That said, with Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Mark Zuckerberg, and possibly Chris Kennedy. I reckon that Trump would be the least of his concerns.

One battle at a time, gotta win the primary first.

Just ask Jeb.

AuH20
08-22-2017, 07:13 PM
A pipe dream. What evidence has shown he has any willingness or can expand his level of support and popularity?

Exactly. Rand is too squishy to make a run at Trump. He's been branded. I wish there was someone in the political realm with the fire and record to take Trump on, but that person doesn't exist at the moment.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 07:15 PM
Not if he's going to support creating new nations and arming other established nations, like last go 'round.
Was/Is he better than Dump?

If you find someone better than Rand who will run let me know.

Feeding the Abscess
08-22-2017, 07:42 PM
Was/Is he better than Dump?

If you find someone better than Rand who will run let me know.

Yes, he was better than Trump.

However, merely being better than Trump isn't reason enough to support him in a primary challenge. He needs to be radically different for enough people to attach themselves to his candidacy.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 07:47 PM
Yes, he was better than Trump.

However, merely being better than Trump isn't reason enough to support him in a primary challenge. He needs to be radically different for enough people to attach themselves to his candidacy.

The point is to pressure Dump to move our direction even if we lose, and if we win any improvement is better than none, certainly better than what the Demoncrats will put up in 2020.

Like I said if you find someone better than Rand to run let me know.

phill4paul
08-22-2017, 07:54 PM
Much can happen between now and then, but someone I respect once stated "Let it not be said that we did nothing." Rand should listen to this remarkable individual.

Brian4Liberty
08-22-2017, 08:05 PM
Well, there are a limited number of things that sell to the ignorant voters, and it has to be short and simple (vulgar is fine).

- Call everyone else names, insult all other candidates.
- Free sh!t for everyone, tax the rich to do it.
- America first, limited immigration.
- Big globalist government with open borders.
- Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
- Israel first.
- Kill all the white people.

Which ones should Rand run on? Randomly going through the whole list might work.

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2017, 08:10 PM
Well, there are a limited number of things that sell to the ignorant voters, and it has to be short and simple (vulgar is fine).

- Call everyone else names, insult all other candidates.
- Free sh!t for everyone, tax the rich to do it.
- America first, limited immigration.
- Big globalist government with open borders.
- Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
- Israel first.
- Kill all the white people.

Which ones should Rand run on? Randomly going through the whole list might work.

I appreciate your cynicism, I do - I'm chocked full of it - but it's still possible (if an uphill battle) to win on other issues.

And, in any event, let me ask you this: what do we have to lose?

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-06/23/16/enhanced/webdr05/enhanced-16169-1403555140-5.jpg

And as Swordsmyth points out, we can win even without winning; we can change the narrative.

Feeding the Abscess
08-22-2017, 08:45 PM
The point is to pressure Dump to move our direction even if we lose, and if we win any improvement is better than none, certainly better than what the Demoncrats will put up in 2020.

Like I said if you find someone better than Rand to run let me know.

Merely being better than Trump isn't going to bring Ron supporters over to Rand. Many of whom were attracted to Ron not because of his libertarianism, but his contrarian, anti-establishment position in the GOP. Those people didn't join up with Rand, and neither did the establishment of the GOP; expecting Rand to do any better against a sitting president in his own party without those types is a fool's errand.

If being better than Trump is the standard, you might as well throw your support behind whatever schmuck the Libertarian Party will nominate this cycle.

not.your.average.joe
08-22-2017, 08:47 PM
I'm young and I've got nothing but time and energy. Right now I feel like a compressed spring, just waiting for someone to come along and give me the ok to DO something for them. The problem with a compressed spring is that it loses potential energy the longer it remains compressed. So if Rand doesn't run in 2020, SOMEONE from Swordsmyth's list better run and they better give me that ok. Because if they run and don't ask me to volunteer, I'm just going to have to volunteer myself. And yes, I know I'm young and inexperienced and probably over enthused, but that's what makes the grassroots special, right?

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 08:49 PM
If being better than Trump is the standard, you might as well throw your support behind whatever schmuck the Libertarian Party will nominate this cycle.

This is about the primaries, as I said above even if we lose we need to put pressure on Dump to move our direction, anyone better than him will do for that purpose.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 08:50 PM
I'm young and I've got nothing but time and energy. Right now I feel like a compressed spring, just waiting for someone to come along and give me the ok to DO something for them. The problem with a compressed spring is that it loses potential energy the longer it remains compressed. So if Rand doesn't run in 2020, SOMEONE from Swordsmyth's list better run and they better give me that ok. Because if they run and don't ask me to volunteer, I'm just going to have to volunteer myself. And yes, I know I'm young and inexperienced and probably over enthused, but that's what makes the grassroots special, right?

I'm temporarily out of rep for joe, someone please cover me.

Brett85
08-22-2017, 08:51 PM
Merely being better than Trump isn't going to bring Ron supporters over to Rand. Many of whom were attracted to Ron not because of his libertarianism, but his contrarian, anti-establishment position in the GOP.

This is actually true. Some former Ron Paul supporters are now supporting the alt right/white nationalists. On paper these two groups are 180 degrees opposite of each other, but some of these people just want to support the most extreme and most anti establishment political philosophy possible. And right now the alt right/white nationalist movement is the most radical political movement in the country.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 08:51 PM
Well, there are a limited number of things that sell to the ignorant voters, and it has to be short and simple (vulgar is fine).

- Call everyone else names, insult all other candidates.
- Free sh!t for everyone, tax the rich to do it.
- America first, limited immigration.
- Big globalist government with open borders.
- Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
- Israel first.
- Kill all the white people.

Which ones should Rand run on? Randomly going through the whole list might work.

THE issue is "BRING THEM HOME"

Feeding the Abscess
08-22-2017, 08:52 PM
And as Swordsmyth points out, we can win even without winning; we can change the narrative.

The current political narrative and climate won't be changed if Rand reprises his last run. The establishment isn't going to back him unless he fully sells out (and even then, why not just back someone who has been with them for years or decades?), in which case every one of us would be gone, and the anti-establishment isn't going for Rand unless he sheds his whole persona for 2020 - and those who value consistency would be suspicious of such a change, anyway.

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2017, 08:54 PM
I'm young and I've got nothing but time and energy. Right now I feel like a compressed spring, just waiting for someone to come along and give me the ok to DO something for them. The problem with a compressed spring is that it loses potential energy the longer it remains compressed. So if Rand doesn't run in 2020, SOMEONE from Swordsmyth's list better run and they better give me that ok. Because if they run and don't ask me to volunteer, I'm just going to have to volunteer myself. And yes, I know I'm young and inexperienced and probably over enthused, but that's what makes the grassroots special, right?

Word


I'm temporarily out of rep for joe, someone please cover me.

Done

fisharmor
08-22-2017, 08:55 PM
If he starts saying things like "End the Fed" and "Bring them all home, even from Korea" and "Eliminate these five complete departments", or golf claps when moderators accuse him of wanting to abolish the CIA, or stands up straight and teaches the country about what blowback is, then he should run.

If he phones it all in like he's been doing for his entire political career, then no.

acptulsa
08-22-2017, 08:57 PM
I'm very conflicted. I think it would be hilarious to primary the $#!+ out of that orange clown. I'd love it. But on the other hand, I'm realistic enough to realize that defeating a sitting Republican president in Republican primaries is about as likely as turning Hillary honest. Which means Rand could cost himself by doing it. He could cost himself Senate allies. He could cost himself popularity among red meat Republidiots in Kentucky, or in 2024. Is there anything to gain to compensate for those risks?

On the other hand, the extreme end of the liberal spectrum is being encouraged to go stark raving mad. Liberals got screwed by Hillary's superdelegates, and they're being tarred by these goons who self-identify as being like them when they're nothing like the traditional, peace-loving lib.

I think it's time to do to the Democratic Party what we did to the GOP. Let's get the Deep State in a pincers. Time to hit their Left flank for a change. If they can screw us in a bipartisan manner, then we can damned well fight back in a bipartisan manner. The Deep State did just as much to torpedo them by blacking out their most electable candidate--Webb--and did just as much to screw them at the convention--with superdelegates. They're pissed. They're ripe for the picking.

Tulsi Gabbard?

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2017, 08:58 PM
The current political narrative and climate won't be changed if Rand reprises his last run. The establishment isn't going to back him unless he fully sells out (and even then, why not just back someone who has been with them for years or decades?), in which case every one of us would be gone, and the anti-establishment isn't going for Rand unless he sheds his whole persona for 2020 - and those who value consistency would be suspicious of such a change, anyway.

The establishment is never going to back him under any circumstances whatever, because his goal is to burn them to the ground.

The "anti-establishment" is mostly a rather confused floating vote that could potentially go with Rand.

The nationalists err if they think they own "anti-establishment"; as we did in the past, before the nationalists took it from us.

nikcers
08-22-2017, 09:00 PM
I really hope he does but we need to figure out how to bypass the fake news and fake internet political industrial complex. We need a medium where people can discuss politics and not self censor because you know you are being monitored. I think that is going to be the biggest hurdle, because the government controls too much information and is going to grab more over the next few years.

acptulsa
08-22-2017, 09:13 PM
I really hope he does but we need to figure out how to bypass the fake news and fake internet political industrial complex. We need a medium where people can discuss politics and not self censor because you know you are being monitored. I think that is going to be the biggest hurdle, because the government controls too much information and is going to grab more over the next few years.

Another reason to do the Democratic fight. They're generally easier to reach without buying a radio station.

Brian4Liberty
08-22-2017, 09:16 PM
THE issue is "BRING THEM HOME"

That'll get about 5%.

There is no more anti-war left, and the anti-war right is small.

But "no nation building" is close, and that's pretty popular.

acptulsa
08-22-2017, 09:20 PM
There is no more anti-war left...

Now that they aren't motivated to give Obama cover, and now that the sitting president has finally gone full neocon, it's about to be rekindled.

Between that and the fact that we know we can make hay with them arguing that local governments do a better job of helping people than the federal government does, also especially when Republicans are in control in Washington, we can seriously gain traction on that side of the aisle.

Seriously.


That'll get about 5%.

And if there are seventeen candidates running in the Democratic primaries? Trump won the first few he took with about six percent of the total population in those states. He did. We can totally work with a number like that.

There won't be seventeen candidates trying to primary Trump. But if they try to ratfuck Democrats the way they ratfucked Republicans, by running seventeen candidates in the primaries so the craziest faction wins, then we can totally throw it to the superdelegates with six percent of the population of Iowa. If Trump can do it, we can sure as hell do it.

I know all the former Democrats who came to Ron Paul got run off by official and unofficial means during this last election, and most of the people who are not currently afraid to log in here would rather eat glass than even talk to Democrats. But you see the words I typed here. We need numbers. We desperately need the people who are as alienated from this Brave New Antifa Left as we are from the neocons. And we can damned well get them, if we try. I'm damned if we can't.

Antiwar, anti-corruption, anti-violence Democrats. We can work with them. Tulsi Gabbard deserves us, and we deserve the allies we'd befriend in the process.

Come on you lurkers, you people who have been afraid to log in since Bryan and Brian made us stop being mean to racists, you people who saw the handwriting on the wall and spent a cycle reluctantly pulling for Sanders because of the Wicked Witch of the West. You remember your password. Chime in here. Look at this pile of lameness...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514297-Dems-prep-for-Pence-Kasich-Haley-to-run-in-2020

...and chime in!

nikcers
08-22-2017, 09:38 PM
That'll get about 5%.

There is no more anti-war left, and the anti-war right is small.

But "no nation building" is close, and that's pretty popular.
no, what people don't like is non intervention isolationism because it doesn't sound good. No nation building and America first just sounds better and means nothing out of context. We need to figure out how to market liberty to the ignorant masses who want freedom but can't think for themselves. I know for a fact if you were to articulate the policy and poll people on it we would win, but we do not know how to sell it to people. It almost sounds like a scam, vote for me and I won't take your money. Yeah that's what they all say.

euphemia
08-22-2017, 09:51 PM
Why is it all on Rand? Is he not doing enough now?

nikcers
08-22-2017, 09:59 PM
Why is it all on Rand? Is he not doing enough now?
I don't pretend to speak for others but my motivation for voting yes is because I love liberty and I think he is still liberty's only chance at survival.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 10:03 PM
Why is it all on Rand? Is he not doing enough now?
It is of course up to him, but the rest of us want somebody good to run, I gave a list near the top of the thread of others I know of that might be good but Rand is the most prominent.

William Tell
08-22-2017, 10:36 PM
I'm young and I've got nothing but time and energy. Right now I feel like a compressed spring, just waiting for someone to come along and give me the ok to DO something for them. The problem with a compressed spring is that it loses potential energy the longer it remains compressed. So if Rand doesn't run in 2020, SOMEONE from Swordsmyth's list better run and they better give me that ok. Because if they run and don't ask me to volunteer, I'm just going to have to volunteer myself. And yes, I know I'm young and inexperienced and probably over enthused, but that's what makes the grassroots special, right? You are the future. Don't wait for a presidential candidate. Find candidates from county commission up to Governor or Senator to support. Your candidates will lose often but someday you will have some victory. Get in politics if you want to do the right thing no matter the cost, if you expect to win short term or most of the time you will be disappointed. It's a rough game, but the upside is almost nobody plays it. Out of a thousand voters you might not find one volunteer.

jmdrake
08-23-2017, 03:02 AM
If there are any other challengers, then absolutely he should. If it means stepping up to Donald Trump one on one, well, that's a choice Rand will have to make. Does he want to spend his political capital that way? If he thinks it is a good decision, I'd support him without hesitation.

He should do it even if he is the only challenger. Hell, he should do it especially if he is the only challenger. If there are multiple challengers then Rand will be seen as just another "establishment republican." If he is the only challenger then he will reclaim the title of "anti-establishment" from that phony, pro war, anti liberty, pro asset forfeiture, race baiting, toupee' wearing, smirking, loudmouthed, jackass, POS, POTUS we currently have. The liberty movement will not survive another 4 years of Donald J. Trump. I seriously wish Steve Bannon were president instead of Trump. In doing all of my research I have found zero evidence that Steve Bannon is racist. Post Charlottesville Steve Bannon simply called the nazi thugs "clowns" and said the left is engaging in "identity politics." Had Trump said that, this Charlottesville nonsense would be over. Steve Bannon in that same interview said that a military option against North Korea is unthinkable because North Korea's conventional arsenal could wipe out our armed forces in South Korea. The only way to take out North Korea would be to withdraw our forces from South Korea first. Guess what? He's freaking right! Trump got rid of the only sensible person in his entire cabinet. The time for going along with Trump because he's "sticking it to the establishment" IS OVER! He is doing more damage to us and our brand than he is doing to the establishment. Wake up and smell the tyranny.

jmdrake
08-23-2017, 03:03 AM
Why is it all on Rand? Is he not doing enough now?

Now is not 2020.

Schifference
08-23-2017, 07:00 AM
My eldest daughter was an avid soccer player. She had hope and dreams of playing on the Women's US Olympic Soccer team. My ex-wife her mother encouraged that. My ex also thought she could get college scholarships playing soccer. My daughter had awesome ball handling skills but is only about 5'4" tall. I told my daughter that I knew that she loved soccer and that I thought she was an awesome soccer player but that she was often not even the best player on the field. I told her that if she is going up against players much taller and larger than her she would be at a disadvantage. Why would I devote limited resources or encourage her to devote time, money, and effort into an unrealistic dream. She graduated High School with a 4.72 GPA. I tried to encourage her to pursue academic interests. Today she is 30. We have always had an exceptional relationship. I think she has always admired me for telling her things from a realistic perspective. FWIW she blew out either one or both of her knees and had a couple of surgeries when she was still a teen.

If I cannot do something, I remain productive by focusing on the things I can do well.

nikcers
08-23-2017, 08:24 AM
If I cannot do something, I remain productive by focusing on the things I can do well.
Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.

r3volution 3.0
08-23-2017, 12:10 PM
Now that they aren't motivated to give Obama cover, and now that the sitting president has finally gone full neocon, [the anti-war left is] about to be rekindled.

Between that and the fact that we know we can make hay with them arguing that local governments do a better job of helping people than the federal government does, also especially when Republicans are in control in Washington, we can seriously gain traction on that side of the aisle.

Seriously.

...

We desperately need the people who are as alienated from this Brave New Antifa Left as we are from the neocons.

Sound points


Come on you lurkers, you people who have been afraid to log in since Bryan and Brian made us stop being mean to racists, you people who saw the handwriting on the wall and spent a cycle reluctantly pulling for Sanders because of the Wicked Witch of the West. You remember your password. Chime in here. Look at this pile of lameness...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514297-Dems-prep-for-Pence-Kasich-Haley-to-run-in-2020

...and chime in!

Seconded

oyarde
08-23-2017, 05:39 PM
I would vote for Rand , but I remain unconvinced that it would not be wasted money spent .

specsaregood
08-23-2017, 06:28 PM
Much can happen between now and then, but someone I respect once stated "Let it not be said that we did nothing." Rand should listen to this remarkable individual.

One doesn't have to run for president in order to be doing something. He does plenty in his role as senator and given the way he was treated even by those that should have supported him last time, I wouldn't blame him one bit for not wanting to waste his time.

The Rebel Poet
08-23-2017, 10:18 PM
I'm very conflicted. I think it would be hilarious to primary the $#!+ out of that orange clown. I'd love it. But on the other hand, I'm realistic enough to realize that defeating a sitting Republican president in Republican primaries is about as likely as turning Hillary honest. Which means Rand could cost himself by doing it. He could cost himself Senate allies. He could cost himself popularity among red meat Republidiots in Kentucky, or in 2024. Is there anything to gain to compensate for those risks?

On the other hand, the extreme end of the liberal spectrum is being encouraged to go stark raving mad. Liberals got screwed by Hillary's superdelegates, and they're being tarred by these goons who self-identify as being like them when they're nothing like the traditional, peace-loving lib.

I think it's time to do to the Democratic Party what we did to the GOP. Let's get the Deep State in a pincers. Time to hit their Left flank for a change. If they can screw us in a bipartisan manner, then we can damned well fight back in a bipartisan manner. The Deep State did just as much to torpedo them by blacking out their most electable candidate--Webb--and did just as much to screw them at the convention--with superdelegates. They're pissed. They're ripe for the picking.

Tulsi Gabbard?
Must spread rep

Brian4Liberty
08-23-2017, 10:27 PM
I would vote for Rand , but I remain unconvinced that it would not be wasted money spent .

That's a practical consideration. How much money would he be able to raise for a POTUS run? Does he want to ask supporters for money for a long shot POTUS run?

oyarde
08-23-2017, 10:40 PM
That's a practical consideration. How much money would he be able to raise for a POTUS run? Does he want to ask supporters for money for a long shot POTUS run?

If I was him I probably could not bring myself to waste the resources . But I am old and practical by nature . He will do what is right at the time . I trust him .

oyarde
08-23-2017, 10:41 PM
I voted no .

P3ter_Griffin
08-24-2017, 08:04 PM
no, what people don't like is non intervention isolationism because it doesn't sound good. No nation building and America first just sounds better and means nothing out of context. We need to figure out how to market liberty to the ignorant masses who want freedom but can't think for themselves. I know for a fact if you were to articulate the policy and poll people on it we would win, but we do not know how to sell it to people. It almost sounds like a scam, vote for me and I won't take your money. Yeah that's what they all say.

I think it is a bigger uphill battle then this. I think if you were to articulate the purpose behind the policies of 'neo-conservatism' 'realism' and 'non-interventionism' they would be inseparable. What we need (assuming the goal is positive election outcome) is to prove why ours is the best policy suited to achieve that commonly shared purpose, and why the others fail to be able to achieve it. And I don't think that has been done (as evidenced by polls showing favor for militarism, as evidenced by election results showing favor for militarism). On the bright side though, convincing people with shared desires (peace, stability, prosperity) is a more surmountable obstacle then convincing some conjured group of people who are incapable of thinking. And the government does a great job showing the failures of the other policies in achieving the shared purpose. On top of that many of our 'enemies' have been vocal that they do not seek war and that war has been a result of the other policies.

P3ter_Griffin
08-24-2017, 08:20 PM
Someone should! Personally I think Amash has the most cross-over appeal, and he's at least as good as Rand when it comes to town halls. But I think it should be determined (in the hypothetical that Amash, Massie, and Rand all are willing to run) by who has the greatest chances. A dull dem contest would-- could-- benefit a republican challenger. Messing with their contest will only ensure less people feel comfortable cross-over voting for us.

Brian4Liberty
08-24-2017, 08:31 PM
Someone should! Personally I think Amash has the most cross-over appeal, and he's better least as good as Rand when it comes to town halls. But I think it should be determined (in the hypothetical that Amash, Massie, and Rand all are willing to run) by who has the greatest chances. A dull dem contest would-- could-- benefit a republican challenger. Messing with their contest will only ensure less people feel comfortable cross-over voting for us.

Amash may be the best choice. He can articulate the libertarian position with an educational goal, and so much better if he has success. It would raise his visibility. Win-win.

William Tell
08-24-2017, 08:36 PM
Amash can't win a southern state. Massie knows how, Rand used to know how and might figure out again. No one who condemns all pro history groups and supports same sex marriage has a chance in most red states. I miss Ron Paul. :(

Schifference
08-25-2017, 07:20 AM
In order to win you have to either be popular or have the ability to be popular. I think Michael Moore said something like if Tom Hanks ran for president he would get elected. Well lets face it Tom Hanks is a likable person. If Mr. Hanks ran against Rand with the same ideology, Hanks would win.
We need someone that is popular or that can be popular that the masses want to support. The message is secondary. People support the person and gravitate toward their ideals.

enhanced_deficit
08-25-2017, 11:45 AM
One battle at a time, gotta win the primary first.

Just ask Jeb.

Rand could have had a compelling shot in 2016 primary race but he made a huge blunder by making his no.1 target Trump - the very guy who was being seen by GOP base as the most vocal critic of their "enemy no.1" Obama. Trump played dirty but he was shrewed enough to diffrentiate himself through the art of street communications. On our dumb foreign policy, Trump was saying some of the same things that Ron Paul used to say in his own style but he stood apart from the "moderated" GOP pack when he called Obama "founding father of ISIS", called media liars, attacked Bush, Lindsey Graham, McCain, Obama, Hillary, little Marco all in same breath.
Do you believe Rand will be willing to call Hillary "founding mama of ISIS" in current atmosphere?


In any case, even if he seriously could consider 2020 at some point later, for now it would be better to not get in the way while Trump softens up some of the same entities that would be later attacking Rand as "isolationist"and with other names when he does start talking about putting America First and starts attacking his fellow Dem/GOP senators.



Rand would certainly be huge improvement over friends of DGP type teams that some moderate neocons are trying to put together.


Republican Kasich, Democrat Hickenlooper mull joint White House run: media
Reuters 40m ago
http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/ratio--3-2--830x553/public/149093039.jpg?itok=7_eB5vie

r3volution 3.0
08-25-2017, 08:56 PM
Rand could have had a compelling shot in 2016 primary race but he made a huge blunder by making his no.1 target Trump - the very guy who was being seen by GOP base as the most vocal critic of their "enemy no.1" Obama.

The same could be said of Romney or McCain.

Rand's mistake wasn't attacking Trump, but attacking him ineffectively (from the perspective of the average GOPer).

nikcers
08-25-2017, 09:28 PM
The same could be said of Romney or McCain.

Rand's mistake wasn't attacking Trump, but attacking him ineffectively (from the perspective of the average GOPer).

He failed to articulate that the establishment and the fake news were propping up Trumps campaign in order to marginalize him and his ideas, I mean Trump even said he shouldn't be in the debate.

r3volution 3.0
08-25-2017, 11:20 PM
He failed to articulate that the establishment and the fake news were propping up Trumps campaign in order to marginalize him and his ideas, I mean Trump even said he shouldn't be in the debate.

That's true.

To correct the problem, I suggest verbally and politically beating Trump into a dumb orange pulp in two years.

Swordsmyth
08-26-2017, 02:59 PM
Add this to "BRING THEM HOME":
Afghanistan Wants Russia, Not US to Help Restore Peace in Country - Ambassador (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514412-Afghanistan-Wants-Russia-Not-US-to-Help-Restore-Peace-in-Country-Ambassador)
Let Putin "fill the vacuum".

AuH20
08-26-2017, 06:38 PM
Amash may be the best choice. He can articulate the libertarian position with an educational goal, and so much better if he has success. It would raise his visibility. Win-win.

Amash has become a caricature of a libertarian. He sucks. Massie is the gold standard and even he is wise enough to see the forest and not the trees.

r3volution 3.0
08-26-2017, 09:40 PM
Amash has become a caricature of a libertarian. He sucks. Massie is the gold standard and even he is wise enough to see the forest and not the trees.

How much does TrumpPac pay?

AuH20
08-26-2017, 09:42 PM
How much does TrumpPac pay?

I wouldn't know. I do know that Justin Amash has become a buffoon though and that's completely independent of Trump's flaws.

r3volution 3.0
08-26-2017, 09:47 PM
I wouldn't know. I do know that Justin Amash has become a buffoon though and that's completely independent of Trump's flaws.

Ah..

Does a person who continues the 16 year old, obviously failed war in Afghanistan qualify as a baboon buffoon, in your opinion?

AuH20
08-26-2017, 09:48 PM
Ah..

Does a person who continues the 16 year failed war in Afghanistan qualify as a baboon buffoon, in your opinion?

Yes, but so does an infantile congressman who's become an absolute contrarian on all things Trump. It's become petty and predictable.

r3volution 3.0
08-26-2017, 09:55 PM
Yes, but so does an infantile congressman who's become an absolute contrarian on all things Trump.

Which pro-liberty initiatives of Trump...

https://media.giphy.com/media/qMqjZkmMi8wFO/giphy.gif

Hold on, let me compose myself...

Right, so, tell me which pro-liberty actions of Trump (a) existed, and (b) were opposed bv Amash.

AuH20
08-26-2017, 09:57 PM
Which pro-liberty initiatives of Trump...

https://media.giphy.com/media/qMqjZkmMi8wFO/giphy.gif

Hold on, let me compose myself...

Right, so, tell me which pro-liberty actions of Trump (a) existed, and (b) were opposed bv Amash.

I cut loose of Amash when he started pushing an independent commission on the alleged Russian connection. He's so far gone. It's comical now. If he can't decipher Deep State voodoo and maintain a level head, then he's useless. Ron Paul called out the Russian frame job from the start.

r3volution 3.0
08-26-2017, 10:02 PM
I cut loose of Amash when he started pushing an independent commission on the alleged Russian connection. He's so far gone. It's comical now. If he can't decipher Deep State voodoo and maintain a level head, then he's useless. Ron Paul called out the Russian frame job from the start.

So, as to anti-liberty actions, none then.

Right

AuH20
08-26-2017, 10:06 PM
So, as to anti-liberty actions, none then.

Right

Don't have a problem with this statement if it's factual and not exaggerated.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/347426-gop-lawmaker-trump-has-bowed-to-the-military-industrial-establishment

r3volution 3.0
08-26-2017, 10:12 PM
Don't have a problem with this statement if it's factual and not exaggerated.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/347426-gop-lawmaker-trump-has-bowed-to-the-military-industrial-establishment

You don't have a problem with someone pointing out that you're full of shit and are shilling for the President?

Good

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-28-2017, 04:35 PM
Only thing is, and I hate to say it, we have to be selective about who gets to do what when and where. Maybe a grassroots informational/ad based web site detached from this forum, perhaps. One with no platform for public commentary.




This can't be emphasized enough. You don't always have to open up your social media information to comments. There are times when it should be done, but also times when it should not be done. One of those times is when you simply want people to view your information and only your information. They should walk away from your site thinking about what you are promoting, not some dumb argument they had with an anonymous detractor.

Swordsmyth
09-01-2017, 12:58 AM
If Rand does run again he should use this: Rand Paul 2020 A CLEAR VISION FOR AMERICA

Schifference
09-01-2017, 04:39 AM
Rand just doesn't possess the personality to win that position.

It will take a person that never backs down and knows they are correct to win. If not Trey Gowdy somebody like him from a personality perspective.

acptulsa
09-01-2017, 08:49 AM
Rand just doesn't possess the personality to win that position.

It will take a person that never backs down and knows they are correct to win. If not Trey Gowdy somebody like him from a personality perspective.

So only psychopaths can be elected?

And trustworthy, principled, libertarian psychopaths are readily available to us?

Brian4Liberty
09-01-2017, 10:44 AM
So only psychopaths can be elected?

And trustworthy, principled, libertarian psychopaths are readily available to us?

Funny you should ask...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg

Swordsmyth
09-01-2017, 12:30 PM
So only psychopaths can be elected?

And trustworthy, principled, libertarian psychopaths are readily available to us?
We do not want a psychopath, they can't be trusted, but we need someone with a confident inspiring "Leader" demeanor, the mass of the public is a herd, they don't respond to teachers, only to leaders.

Schifference
09-01-2017, 03:23 PM
So only psychopaths can be elected?

And trustworthy, principled, libertarian psychopaths are readily available to us?

Are you saying Trey Gowdy is a psychopath?

nikcers
09-01-2017, 08:31 PM
So only psychopaths can be elected?

And trustworthy, principled, libertarian psychopaths are readily available to us?
No essentially people who offer what people want, (easy answers for hard questions) you can't win. So basically only demagogues can win because people are too stupid. I think that this is what Ron Paul is talking about when he talks about ideas having power. He is talking about philosophical ideas that can't be unseen by the minds eye, or what I believe is the form of the good.

Humans are compelled to pursue the good, but no one can hope to do this successfully without philosophical reasoning


Imagine an election debate between two candidates, one who was like a doctor and the other who was like a sweet shop owner. (its like he watched the debates between Rand Paul and Trump)


We have given the vote to all without connecting it to that of wisdom. And Socrates knew exactly where that would lead: to a system the Greeks feared above all, demagoguery. We have forgotten all about Socrates’s salient warnings against democracy. We have preferred to think of democracy as an unambiguous good – rather than a process that is only ever as effective as the education system that surrounds it.

Crucially, Socrates was not elitist in the normal sense. He didn’t believe that a narrow few should only ever vote. He did, however, insist that only those who had thought about issues rationally and deeply should be let near a vote.

If you were heading out on a journey by sea, asks Socrates, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring? Socrates’s point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people.

In 399 BC, the philosopher was put on trial on trumped up charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. A jury of 500 Athenians was invited to weigh up the case and decided by a narrow margin that the philosopher was guilty. He was put to death by hemlock in a process which is, for thinking people, every bit as tragic as Jesus’s condemnation has been for Christians.

ThePaleoLibertarian
09-03-2017, 02:13 AM
Whether it's a proper strategic move remains to be seen, but Rand is totally incapable of winning the presidency and so is any prominent libertarian. The libertarian movement, and indeed, the entire right wing needs to be torn down and rebuilt, but only after the leaders and devotees study and understand power. No one seems to understand power less than libertarians, and until the root is torn out and replanted, the tree of liberty will always be diseased and malnourished.

acptulsa
09-03-2017, 06:36 AM
No one seems to understand power less than libertarians, and until the root is torn out and replanted, the tree of liberty will always be diseased and malnourished.

Oh, joy. Now the stormfront brigade is telling us we don't understand power. We understand power just fine, thank you very much. That's why we want to take it out of the hands of the few and spread it as thin as possible. But of course the right racists have no more use for liberty than the left racists. The right racists are giddy because the left racists have succeeded in brainwashing college students of color into begging for the return of segregation. The neo-Nazis are delirious with joy because they finally have the communists on their side, for the first time since 1939. Universal segregation now! Of course, you won't get along any better now than Hitler and Stalin did then. But don't let me stop you from enjoying the moment. Not that I could anyway--getting along with people is hardly your ideal, is it?

Don't nurse the Tree of Liberty back to health while people still remember how sweet are its fruits. Oh, no! Tear it out by the roots ourselves and see if our new communist and fascist overlords suffer us to grow it from the seed. See, indeed, if they even allow us enough hours in the day off from our slave duties to tend that seedling. See if a whole new generation will come tend our pitiful little seedling when they have never tasted its sweet fruit at all. What sage advice!

Rand can't win the presidency because sanity is boring. No one pointed a camera at him during his campaign not because his message ran counter to the brainwashing designed to lead us all to slavery, but rather because insanity boosts ratings better. Yeah, we've heard it all, and have been hearing it ever since you turkeys invaded this site during the campaign and drove off our bipartisan coalition of sane people. Repetition does not change the fact that none of you give two shits in a sack about liberty. Repetition does not change the fact that we're not stupid enough to willingly give up what liberties we have left on your empty promise that we might grow some more after five generations of slavery, if only we let you have your evil way now.

Where the fuck am I? Tear out the Tree of Liberty. This place followed Alice through the Looking Glass. I look at the RPF banner and I see looking glass letters. What does FPR stand for? Fascist Public Radio? And what would Antifa's non-self-serving advice be? Tear the Tree of Liberty out by the roots. And what would George Soros' non-self-serving advice be? Tear the Tree of Liberty out by the roots. And what would Stalin's non-self-serving advice have been? Tear the Tree of Liberty out by the roots.

Stop trying to redefine our movement. You are ThePaleoTotalitarian and it's about time you admitted it.

ThePaleoLibertarian
09-03-2017, 04:36 PM
We understand power just fine, thank you very much. That's why we want to take it out of the hands of the few and spread it as thin as possible.
Ye Gods, your lack of self-awareness is astounding. This statement demonstrates that you have no understanding of power. What you just said is the most jejune kind of pro-democracy talking point. It would be totally at home at a Bernie Sanders rally.

Power always concentrates into few hands. Man is a hierarchical animal. The liberty of the populace needs to benefit the aristocratic class, otherwise, liberty doesn't exist. This is why democracy (and yes, republicanism) always erodes liberty and why monarchy (or other forms of private governance) is the only way to create and maintain it. The incentive structure must be aligned properly.


But of course the right racists have no more use for liberty than the left racists. The right racists are giddy because the left racists have succeeded in brainwashing college students of color into begging for the return of segregation. The neo-Nazis are delirious with joy because they finally have the communists on their side, for the first time since 1939. Universal segregation now! Of course, you won't get along any better now than Hitler and Stalin did then. But don't let me stop you from enjoying the moment. Not that I could anyway--getting along with people is hardly your ideal, is it?
Dementia has taken what little was left of your mind, I see. That's the only explanation as to why you'd be bringing any of this up in this discussion, which has nothing to do with neo-nazis or communists.


Don't nurse the Tree of Liberty back to health while people still remember how sweet are its fruits. Oh, no!
Yes, let's hear your brilliant strategy on how to get a populace who despises the very concept of liberty to "nurse the tree". You are incapable of a cold, rational power analysis, all you can do is spew platitudes and insult your betters.


Tear it out by the roots ourselves and see if our new communist and fascist overlords suffer us to grow it from the seed. See, indeed, if they even allow us enough hours in the day off from our slave duties to tend that seedling. See if a whole new generation will come tend our pitiful little seedling when they have never tasted its sweet fruit at all. What sage advice!
When I say "tear it out", I'm talking about starting from scratch when it comes to political strategy. If you think I'm advocating handing over power to "fascist and communist overlords", you're even dumber than I thought, which is truly an achievement.


Rand can't win the presidency because sanity is boring. No one pointed a camera at him during his campaign not because his message ran counter to the brainwashing designed to lead us all to slavery, but rather because insanity boosts ratings better. Yeah, we've heard it all, and have been hearing it ever since you turkeys invaded this site during the campaign and drove off our bipartisan coalition of sane people. Repetition does not change the fact that none of you give two shits in a sack about liberty. Repetition does not change the fact that we're not stupid enough to willingly give up what liberties we have left on your empty promise that we might grow some more after five generations of slavery, if only we let you have your evil way now.
"Yeah, I know libertarians have been completely ineffectual on a political level since at least World War II, but hey, it's everyone else's fault! We don't have to change. We don't have to reevaluate our strategy, even if it does consistently fail. Let's talk about how the media is against us and weren't fair to Ron or Rand! So what if it's never worked before? I'm old and change is hard. I need a nap. Where's my glasses? Nazis! Nazis and communists everywhere!"


Where the fuck am I? Tear out the Tree of Liberty. This place followed Alice through the Looking Glass. I look at the RPF banner and I see looking glass letters. What does FPR stand for? Fascist Public Radio? And what would Antifa's non-self-serving advice be? Tear the Tree of Liberty out by the roots. And what would George Soros' non-self-serving advice be? Tear the Tree of Liberty out by the roots. And what would Stalin's non-self-serving advice have been? Tear the Tree of Liberty out by the roots.
Again, political strategy.


Stop trying to redefine our movement. You are ThePaleoTotalitarian and it's about time you admitted it.
I want liberty and civilizational renewal far more than you do. I'm young. I have to live in this society for several more decades. I don't want to live in this rotting husk of a once great civilization, but I'm smart enough to know that what's been tried doesn't fucking work. You, on the other hand, are perfectly content taking potshots at the establishment while being part of an ineffectual movement that sees absolutely no substantial political victories. Do you ever get tired of failure?

The Rebel Poet
09-03-2017, 07:22 PM
Ye Gods, your lack of self-awareness is astounding. This statement demonstrates that you have no understanding of power. What you just said is the most jejune kind of pro-democracy talking point. It would be totally at home at a Bernie Sanders rally.

So would end the fed, end the wars etc., but unlike Sanders, acptulsa actually wants to prevent power from being concentrated, in that, you are more like Sanders and other leftists than acptulsa could ever be.


Power always concentrates into few hands.
That doesn't make it right.

Man is a hierarchical animal. The liberty of the populace needs to benefit the aristocratic class, otherwise, liberty doesn't exist.
This is necessarily true, except that it assumes there must be a ruling class. Many of us here believe that all men are created equal.

This is why democracy (and yes, republicanism) always erodes liberty and why monarchy (or other forms of private governance) is the only way to create and maintain it. The incentive structure must be aligned properly.
I'm pretty sure I agree with this.


Dementia has taken what little was left of your mind, I see. That's the only explanation as to why you'd be bringing any of this up in this discussion, which has nothing to do with neo-nazis or communists.
Then why did you bring up a Bernie Sanders rally?

Yes, let's hear your brilliant strategy on how to get a populace who despises the very concept of liberty to "nurse the tree". You are incapable of a cold, rational power analysis, all you can do is spew platitudes and insult your betters.
So much irony in this.

When I say "tear it out", I'm talking about starting from scratch when it comes to political strategy. If you think I'm advocating handing over power to "fascist and communist overlords", you're even dumber than I thought, which is truly an achievement.
That was not at all clear from your sentence. How did you think we would interpret the phrases "tear out the root" and "tree of liberty" used in the same sentence?

"Yeah, I know libertarians have been completely ineffectual on a political level since at least World War II, but hey, it's everyone else's fault! We don't have to change. We don't have to reevaluate our strategy, even if it does consistently fail. Let's talk about how the media is against us and weren't fair to Ron or Rand! So what if it's never worked before? I'm old and change is hard. I need a nap. Where's my glasses? Nazis! Nazis and communists everywhere!"
What makes you think he wants no change in strategy at all, merely because he doesn't support your changes? You are making the same logical fallacy that the socialists make regarding charity.

Again, political strategy.
Again, not at all clear.

I want liberty and civilizational renewal far more than you do.
How did you measure that?

I'm young. I have to live in this society for several more decades. I don't want to live in this rotting husk of a once great civilization, but I'm smart enough to know that what's been tried doesn't fucking work. You, on the other hand, are perfectly content taking potshots at the establishment while being part of an ineffectual movement that sees absolutely no substantial political victories. Do you ever get tired of failure?
Winning for the sake of winning is meaningless. That is what the Trumpists on this site (any who are philosophically libertarian) failed to realize. Victory must achieve something you actually want to achieve. We don't want to achieve racially motivated state power (or almost any state power).

ThePaleoLibertarian
09-03-2017, 08:15 PM
So would end the fed, end the wars etc., but unlike Sanders, acptulsa actually wants to prevent power from being concentrated, in that, you are more like Sanders and other leftists than acptulsa could ever be.
Power is fundamentally always concentrated. Constitutions and voting don't limit state power in any discernable way. Good, efficient, limited government is achieved by having the correct incentives in place and the correct dogmas believed.


That doesn't make it right.
If it's an inevitable feature of civilization, then it doesn't matter if it's right or not, it needs to be dealt with. It is all of the worst political philosophies that choose their theory when said theory is tested against reality.


This is necessarily true, except that it assumes there must be a ruling class.
There must be. Leadership (good or bad) takes certain qualities, that not everyone has. Human hierarchies will always reflect this. The issue at hand is to engineer a system where the rulers err on the side of more liberty, not less like in today's world.


Many of us here believe that all men are created equal.
That is simply a falsehood.


I'm pretty sure I agree with this.
Okay.


Then why did you bring up a Bernie Sanders rally?
Because he was spewing platitudinous pablum that would be at home there or at pretty much any demotic clusterfuck.


So much irony in this.
Is there? Whether you agree with my analysis or not, it is at least analysis. acptulsa is just raving about phantom neo-Nazis and communists, as though that has anything at all to do with the discussion at hand.


That was not at all clear from your sentence. How did you think we would interpret the phrases "tear out the root" and "tree of liberty" used in the same sentence?
How is it unclear when I'm specifically talking about Rand and his inability to win the Presidency? This whole thread is about political strategy FFS.


What makes you think he wants no change in strategy at all, merely because he doesn't support your changes? You are making the same logical fallacy that the socialists make regarding charity.
Because he talks about how Rand's failures weren't his fault when in large part they absolutely were. Did the media give him a raw deal? Of course they did, but a truly savvy operator would have had some fucking plan in place. Rand failing to produce his father's numbers and indeed, failing to get into fucking double digits are his fucking fault. You can't fix a problem until you accept that there is one.

If little tulsa has strategic theories, I'd love to hear them. I couls use a good laugh.


Again, not at all clear.
See above.


How did you measure that?
I'm young, I'm a gun owner, I'm self-employed and I live in the most leftist state in the country. No one wants liberty more than someone in my shoes. I'm going to be living in this country a lot longer than he is.


Winning for the sake of winning is meaningless. That is what the Trumpists on this site (any who are philosophically libertarian) failed to realize. Victory must achieve something you actually want to achieve. We don't want to achieve racially motivated state power (or almost any state power).
It's not about winning for its own sake, it's about understanding power so libertarians can actually make intelligent strategic choices and get things to improve, even a little. I'm trying to play chess, while tulsa just wants to flip the board and yell about how the opposing player is a bad man and how he's surrounded by Nazis. Listening to rubes like him os what got the movement in such a sorry state.

acptulsa
09-04-2017, 08:15 AM
Ye Gods, your lack of self-awareness is astounding. This statement demonstrates that you have no understanding of power. What you just said is the most jejune kind of pro-democracy talking point. It would be totally at home at a Bernie Sanders rally.

I have a lack of self awareness, yet you are on a libertarian website screaming that we should let you and your ilk set up some sort of collectivist kaiser because the concept of spreading power out among the many is Bernie Sanders socialism. Buddy, Bernie Sanders is The Man Who Would Be King. In that respect, you are Bernie Sanders.


"Yeah, I know libertarians have been completely ineffectual on a political level since at least World War II, but hey, it's everyone else's fault! We don't have to change. We don't have to reevaluate our strategy, even if it does consistently fail.

Failure is a relative term. Our band has slowed the march of tyranny from time to time. And your grumpy band of segregationists? The second half of the Twentieth Century was a string of unmitigated failures for the lot of you. Never in history has your brand of collectivism suffered more spectacular setbacks in terms of policy. In fact, the greatest gains your brand of feudalism have seen since Reconstruction have come at the hands of your mortal enemies, who have of late been convincing minorities they don't want to hang with you, and accomplishing the segregation you drooled over for a century by relegating white college students to the ghetto dorms.

And you sit here screaming like a bad characture of a fascist pedagogue about how we're ineffective? Got news, bub. You're not only totally ineffective, but we're among the overwhelming majority of the people of the world who are damned glad you're totally ineffective.

Now. What the fuck makes you think your totalitarian would-be kingmaking ass has anything in common with us; have any strategies we would care use, thus setting aside all our principles so we can go down in flames as your ilk always, always does; have anything in common with us at all? So why are you here again? If you're getting paid for plaguing us, that's one thing. But if you're just trolling us to make it easy for the mainstream media to slander us by accusing us of being you, then I guess your political ineffectiveness isn't just the inherent ugliness of the way you'd sacrifice all peace, prosperity, beauty, reason and everything else on the altar of racism. I guess part of it is the lot of you are too stupid to realize when you are trolling in a place where you'll never make friends, and too stupid to avoid aiding your strongest enemies by feeding them the enemies who are doing you far, far less harm.

Because for all you lecture us about how stupid and ineffective we are, you people have exactly one power. One and only one. Like a person with bad body funk, you can completely isolate anyone--just by hanging out with them. At least we aren't you people.