Rand tries to regain 4th Amendment credibility again

[Matt Collins]

And here is Rand attempting to regain credibility on the 4th Amendment even though he just voted to seat a Supreme Court Justice who was ok with blatantly violating it.




Why didn't he publicly ask Kavanaugh if it was ok for the FBI to violate the 4th Amendment?






https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1050045944555888640

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1050051828073795585

[phill4paul]

This has already been explained. You keep ignoring it. Quit spreading falsehoods.


https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/13/brett-kavanaugh-calls-carpenter-v-united

[timosman]

Rand Paul To Christopher Wray: Are President Trump's Calls Being Collected By NSA or FBI
https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527306-Rand-Paul-To-Christopher-Wray-Are-President-Trump-s-Calls-Being-Collected-By-NSA-or-FBI

[Matt Collins]

This has already been explained. You keep ignoring it. Quit spreading falsehoods.


https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/13/brett-kavanaugh-calls-carpenter-v-united
That doesn't actually explain anything. Kavanaugh's actions are very telling about his support for breaking the 4th Amendment.

[Swordsmyth]

That doesn't actually explain anything. Kavanaugh's actions are very telling about his support for breaking the 4th Amendment.

You can claim Rand is gullible if you wish but that doesn't mean he has no 4thA credibility.

[thoughtomator]

Rand understands that nobody will have any liberty whatsoever if the Communists take over, and also how close they actually are to taking over.

Securing liberty does not involve being a virtue signaling pretend-to-principles ignoramus with a limited understanding of the big picture. It involves taking the best options available, and not taking a bad option just because the most preferred option isn't on the table.

[eleganz]

Rand Paul has plenty of 4A credibility. More than anybody here can claim with their zero sum game mentality.

[phill4paul]

That doesn't actually explain anything. Kavanaugh's actions are very telling about his support for breaking the 4th Amendment.

It DOES actually explain quite a bit WRT Rand's support of Kavanaugh after their discussions with each other. It just doesn't conform to the outcome you wish it to. The lack of time you spend here, and the amount of time spent bashing Rand when you do, only makes it appear that you have burned so many bridges in the libertarian and Republican political circles that you're virtue signalling to the libtards in an effort to get some kind of job in their circles. Perhaps you can't fuck up making a cup of chai tea.

[Matt Collins]

You can claim Rand is gullible if you wish but that doesn't mean he has no 4thA credibility.
After voting for Kavanaugh, he has no 4A credibility.

[Matt Collins]

Rand understands that nobody will have any liberty whatsoever if the Communists take over, and also how close they actually are to taking over.The statists have long since taken over.


It involves taking the best options available, and not taking a bad option just because the most preferred option isn't on the table.Wrong. This is bad political strategy that is guaranteed to let the progressives win. Settle for nothing less than 100%, go on the offensive at every opportunity. And there was a choice that was better than Kavanuagh, Trump didn't even want him.

[Matt Collins]

It DOES actually explain quite a bit WRT Rand's support of Kavanaugh after their discussions with each other. No, not at all. Kavanaugh never said he was wrong in regards to his opinions on the 4th. And he never said he would rule with the Constitution instead of with the government in the future. And he never apologized for ruling against the Constitution in the past.


It just doesn't conform to the outcome you wish it to. The lack of time you spend here, and the amount of time spent bashing Rand when you do, only makes it appear that you have burned so many bridges in the libertarian and Republican political circles that you're virtue signalling to the libtards in an effort to get some kind of job in their circles. Perhaps you can't fuck up making a cup of chai tea.I have no idea what this statement even means as it doesn't make any sense :rolleyes:

[Swordsmyth]

After voting for Kavanaugh, he has no 4A credibility.

In your mind, but nobody cares what you think.

[Swordsmyth]

The statists have long since taken over.
And communists are much worse.


Wrong. This is bad political strategy that is guaranteed to let the progressives win. Settle for nothing less than 100%, go on the offensive at every opportunity. And there was a choice that was better than Kavanuagh, Trump didn't even want him.
Then we couldn't get him and therefore your strategy would have made a bad situation worse, tilt and windmills all you want but stop throwing stone at someone who chooses a less than perfect outcome over a disaster.

[timosman]

Does Collins have a depressing avatar? :confused:

[specsaregood]

In your mind, but nobody cares what you think.

It would help if you all would just ignore the little devil.

[thoughtomator]

Wrong. This is bad political strategy that is guaranteed to let the progressives win. Settle for nothing less than 100%, go on the offensive at every opportunity. And there was a choice that was better than Kavanuagh, Trump didn't even want him.

And your record of political success that makes you an authority greater than Senator Rand Paul on political strategy is... ?

[Matt Collins]

And communists are much worse.Communists are statists. You need to lean what a Venn Diagram is.



Then we couldn't get him and therefore your strategy would have made a bad situation worse, tilt and windmills all you want but stop throwing stone at someone who chooses a less than perfect outcome over a disaster.Incorrect. It is possible Rand could have forced his hand and had Mike Lee chosen instead. That was a very realistic possibility. However, given the way things went down, Rand still could have voted against Kavanaugh, standing on principle, and Trump's nominee would have gotten seated anyway. There was margin.

[Matt Collins]

And your record of political success that makes you an authority greater than Senator Rand Paul on political strategy is... ?At this point yes, Rand has fallen in to the access trap which means he essentially is ineffective and holds virtually no power.

[Matt Collins]

In your mind, but nobody cares what you think.
Again, untrue. The hundreds of people who respond positively to my similar comments on Facebook show otherwise.

[timosman]

Again, untrue. The hundreds of people who respond positively to my similar comments on Facebook show otherwise.

Seems like you know which way to go. :cool:

[thoughtomator]

At this point yes, Rand has fallen in to the access trap which means he essentially is ineffective and holds virtually no power.

The more straightforward explanation is that a person with so little accomplishment that he deflects the question when asked directly and who comes off as bitter over not having made the cut for Rand's political team simply lacks the humility to assess the situation objectively.

[nobody's_hero]

Communists are statists. You need to lean what a Venn Diagram is.


Incorrect. It is possible Rand could have forced his hand and had Mike Lee chosen instead. That was a very realistic possibility. However, given the way things went down, Rand still could have voted against Kavanaugh, standing on principle, and Trump's nominee would have gotten seated anyway. There was margin.

It's also possible this could have dragged on beyond the elections. Anything could have happened if the Dems retake a majority, and likely nothing good. I don't really care if Princess Murkowski gets drummed out of office by angry republicans for dicking around on close votes, but I'd rather the same not happen to Rand.


At this point yes, Rand has fallen in to the access trap which means he essentially is ineffective and holds virtually no power.

Weren't you stripped of a GOP position for not shaking someone's hand in 2009? How much effectiveness and power did you get from doing that? Not saying you were wrong, but you seem to be holding Rand to an unreasonable standard that you sort of blew yourself when you were in a similar situation.

[Matt Collins]

The more straightforward explanation is that a person with so little accomplishment that he deflects the question when asked directly and who comes off as bitter over not having made the cut for Rand's political team simply lacks the humility to assess the situation objectively.Uh no. I didn't want to live in DC or KY. And I had worked for Rand during the campaign in 09/10. The 2016 "campaign" was an embarrassing joke. I realized it on day one and wanted no part of it from then forward.

I would however like to see Rand shape up and start fighting hard for principle, which he seems to have abandoned more and more as time moved on.

[Matt Collins]

It's also possible this could have dragged on beyond the elections. Anything could have happened if the Dems retake a majority, and likely nothing good. I don't really care if Princess Murkowski gets drummed out of office by angry republicans for dicking around on close votes, but I'd rather the same not happen to Rand.Rand has no chance of losing his Senate seat in KY. Remember they keep electing Mitch too. Rand could have gone to Trump immediately and explained to him his objections early on. Or better yet, Trump should have asked him before he went with Kavanaugh.

[dannno]

That doesn't actually explain anything. Kavanaugh's actions are very telling about his support for breaking the 4th Amendment.

I thought they were more telling about his support for textualism.

[dannno]

Matt, it would be one thing if Kavanaugh just came out and said he changed his mind and Rand had to trust him. But he never changed his mind, he has been consistent as to how he approaches these matters. As long as he is consistent, he will be a much better advocate for the 4th amendment than he has been in the past.

Why don't you wait and see what happens before making these type of judgments?

[William Tell]

At this point yes, Rand has fallen in to the access trap which means he essentially is ineffective and holds virtually no power.
Laughable statement considering Rand is the first person in the history of the modern liberty movement to have direct visible policy and personal influence over a sitting president. The strategy you suggest is sexier but to say it's the only one and Rand has no influence is just hilarious.

[thoughtomator]

Uh no. I didn't want to live in DC or KY. And I had worked for Rand during the campaign in 09/10. The 2016 "campaign" was an embarrassing joke. I realized it on day one and wanted no part of it from then forward.

I would however like to see Rand shape up and start fighting hard for principle, which he seems to have abandoned more and more as time moved on.

Just some friendly advice... this axe you're grinding against Rand is convincing exactly zero people while making you toxic to potential future employers in the political consulting field. Who's going to take a chance on someone who looks like he's seeking revenge against a former client?

This is only hurting you personally while achieving nothing. And you're basically suggesting that Rand adopt the same approach, to seek to accumulate unnecessary damage for no gain.

[pcosmar]

Watch out for the Police Drones.

I seem to remember him being OK with that too.

[dannno]

Watch out for the Police Drones.

I seem to remember him being OK with that too.

Only if there is an active crime occurring (a violent crime, theft or otherwise, not a drug crime or something) - as opposed to a suspected crime, or a known non-violent crime.

[A Son of Liberty]

All these implied attacks on Ron's career... such a shame, what's become of this place.

Ron Paul did more for the quote-unquote Liberty movement, such that remains of it, than any of you people. In fact a bunch of you are actively if not knowingly UNDERMINING so much that he did. Yet here you are attacking his strategy. What do any of you know?

Something about your chains, and something about posterity ever remembering you were my countrymen.

[angelatc]

Don't care. Still donating to Rand, Justin and Thomas on a regular basis.

I'll never understand why the so-called friends of liberty will go to the end of the Earth to trash one of the few political successes we've had. It's not like Ron is waiting in the wings to take over the seat or something.

If Napoleon's Shadow's wet dream comes true - we get discouraged and stop supporting Rand....then what? The GOP gets a new senator that's friendlier to them than us?

Great game plan there, Matt.

[dannno]

All these implied attacks on Ron's career... such a shame, what's become of this place.

Ron Paul did more for the quote-unquote Liberty movement, such that remains of it, than any of you people. In fact a bunch of you are actively if not knowingly UNDERMINING so much that he did. Yet here you are attacking his strategy. What do any of you know?

Something about your chains, and something about posterity ever remembering you were my countrymen.

Isn't it just Matt Collins?

[angelatc]

Isn't it just Matt Collins?

These days it is. The same little fucker that was allowed to destroy the grassroots activity with sock puppets and trolling in the forums is now back here using the same tactics, trying to destroy the support for Rand? If he had any shame, he'd be embarrassed to post here.

[A Son of Liberty]

Isn't it just Matt Collins?

Cute.

Ron would have used Kavanaugh's positions on 4A to make a statement, and he would have used the opportunity to educate people about the cause of Liberty. And in the end that would have done more REAL LONG TERM GOOD than any political compromise anyone could ever make.

Ron was born about 15 years too early.

[thoughtomator]

Cute.

Ron would have used Kavanaugh's positions on 4A to make a statement, and he would have used the opportunity to educate people about the cause of Liberty. And in the end that would have done more REAL LONG TERM GOOD than any political compromise anyone could ever make.

Ron was born about 15 years too early.

Ron has exactly the same ability to make a statement on Kavanaugh at this very moment as he ever did at any point in time, since he never sat in the Senate and a Congressman has exactly zero input in the process. Last statement I can find from Ron on the issue is from months ago.

Ask yourself: Why has Ron said nothing about Kavanaugh since June? Why has he been silent about the implications for the 4th of the rape hoaxes against Kavanaugh? I can answer this for you, but you're best off coming to a conclusion on your own.

That aside, I'd say getting rape hoaxed the way he did is going to make Kavanaugh treat the 4th a lot more seriously than anyone is giving him credit for now.

[A Son of Liberty]

Ron has exactly the same ability to make a statement on Kavanaugh at this very moment as he ever did at any point in time, since he never sat in the Senate and a Congressman has exactly zero input in the process. Last statement I can find from Ron on the issue is from months ago.

Ask yourself: Why has Ron said nothing about Kavanaugh since June? Why has he been silent about the implications for the 4th of the rape hoaxes against Kavanaugh? I can answer this for you, but you're best off coming to a conclusion on your own.

That aside, I'd say getting rape hoaxed the way he did is going to make Kavanaugh treat the 4th a lot more seriously than anyone is giving him credit for now.

Ron's role in the public eye is tremendously diminished. His role now is little different from others in the non-political liberty movement at this point.

Again, if you think Ron, as a congressman, would have spoken in FAVOR of Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, you're off your twig.

[thoughtomator]

Ron's role in the public eye is tremendously diminished. His role now is little different from others in the non-political liberty movement at this point.

Again, if you think Ron, as a congressman, would have spoken in FAVOR of Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, you're off your twig.

Deflecting the question betrays an inability to come up with a rational answer to it.

https://twitter.com/ronpaul

As you can see, Ron is still in the public eye, and still making statements on a daily basis - as recently as 26 minutes ago.

You want to speak for Ron but can't explain why someone who has a long history of speaking his mind isn't saying what you would like him to say.

As a Congressman Ron would have had no more input than he has now, so that he is no longer so is not material to the question at all.

[Matt Collins]

I'll never understand why the so-called friends of liberty will go to the end of the Earth to trash one of the few political successes we've had. Kavanaugh is not a political success, he is a failure of liberty. We hold our people to a higher standard because we expect more and they know better.

[Matt Collins]

Just some friendly advice... this axe you're grinding against Rand is convincing exactly zero people while making you toxic to potential future employers in the political consulting field. Who's going to take a chance on someone who looks like he's seeking revenge against a former client?I'm not seeking revenge. I'm not even in the business any more. I do consult for some candidates here and there, but they come after me, I don't seek out work in politics and haven't in a few years.






And you're basically suggesting that Rand adopt the same approach, to seek to accumulate unnecessary damage for no gain.Incorrect. Rand could have forced Trump's hand early on and gotten another nominee instead. And even if he couldn't, he would have raised the issue of the 4th Amendment, Patriot Act, warrant-less spying, etc and brought it back to the forefront of public attention. That would have been a tremendous gain. If he had done it right it is possible he would have even caused enough Senators to vote against Kavanaugh so that he wouldn't have been seated.

But Rand was weak and didn't want to take the heat and fight the fight.

[Matt Collins]

Laughable statement considering Rand is the first person in the history of the modern liberty movement to have direct visible policy and personal influence over a sitting president. That assumes this statement is true. How far does his "influence" extend? When push comes to shove does he actually have any leverage over Trump's foreign policy? I doubt it, unless of course he is using it in the regard of voting a certain way in the Senate.

Rand it appears has sold out power for access, what we call the "Access trap"... Yeah he may have Trump's year, but at what cost?

[Matt Collins]

Matt, it would be one thing if Kavanaugh just came out and said he changed his mind and Rand had to trust him. But he never changed his mind, he has been consistent as to how he approaches these matters. As long as he is consistent, he will be a much better advocate for the 4th amendment than he has been in the past. Huh? Can you rephrase this, I don't understand your point? :confused:

[dannno]

Huh? Can you rephrase this, I don't understand your point? :confused:

Have you read anything anybody has posted on this subject? You can't possibly be this dense..

[specsaregood]

As a Congressman Ron would have had no more input than he has now, so that he is no longer so is not material to the question at all.

You mean Representative, since Senators are Congressmen as well. And I've said many times before that if Ron had been a Senator I think he might have voted/behaved much more like Randal than some people believe. The roles are different with good reason.

[asurfaholic]

Rand understands that nobody will have any liberty whatsoever if the Communists take over, and also how close they actually are to taking over.

Securing liberty does not involve being a virtue signaling pretend-to-principles ignoramus with a limited understanding of the big picture. It involves taking the best options available, and not taking a bad option just because the most preferred option isn't on the table.

This makes sense. I’m borderline anti compromise, and wish at times that Rand was as “hard headed” for my own lack of a better term, as his father. What I mean is that I am easily turned off by compromise, but your statement helps me understand the value of compromise as it relates to a bigger picture than just the subject at hand. I am not sure if Rand really compromises though and I am in full support of him. He’s the real deal.

[Anti-Neocon]

Rand understands that nobody will have any liberty whatsoever if the Communists take over, and also how close they actually are to taking over.

Securing liberty does not involve being a virtue signaling pretend-to-principles ignoramus with a limited understanding of the big picture. It involves taking the best options available, and not taking a bad option just because the most preferred option isn't on the table.
He could've said no, and that instead he'd support someone who wasn't a Bush toady who wanted to rip up the Fourth Amendment.

People like Kavanaugh are the reason why this forum existed in the first place, now that Cheeto Jesus is President people actually are defending him.

He had a chance to make a difference, and shed light on a huge issue, and he failed. All I see from you is appeal to fear.

[angelatc]

Have you read anything anybody has posted on this subject? You can't possibly be this dense..

You're not new here. You know this isn't true.

Looking back over the years, I see a pattern. Matt does not build coalitions, he exists only to destroy them. There are 99 other senators who are unfriendlier to liberty than Rand Paul, but here he is....stirring up discontent in the ranks of the faithful.

And note he does it using the words we and us. And possibly sock puppets.

[A Son of Liberty]

Deflecting the question betrays an inability to come up with a rational answer to it.

https://twitter.com/ronpaul

As you can see, Ron is still in the public eye, and still making statements on a daily basis - as recently as 26 minutes ago.

You want to speak for Ron but can't explain why someone who has a long history of speaking his mind isn't saying what you would like him to say.

As a Congressman Ron would have had no more input than he has now, so that he is no longer so is not material to the question at all.

Nonsense, and if you were around when it mattered, you'd know it.

Ron wouldn't have endorsed Kavanaugh, and that's not really even debatable. Ron staked out the principled position, and whether you realize it or not, it's why you're even posting on this forum.

[nikcers]

Cute.

Ron would have used Kavanaugh's positions on 4A to make a statement, and he would have used the opportunity to educate people about the cause of Liberty. And in the end that would have done more REAL LONG TERM GOOD than any political compromise anyone could ever make.

Ron was born about 15 years too early.

Rand has been making statements and educating people about the fourth amendment his entire political career. He actually did point out Kavanaughs record on the fourth amendment, he said it sardonically saying I wonder how many more he will wipe out. It fell on deaf ears, he would of got attacked for persuing it, the same way that Judge Napolitano got attacked for it.

[A Son of Liberty]

For the record, it is both amazing and sad that this discussion is even happening here. The destruction of 4A was at one time something of a unifying principle at this site. Now we're about parsing so-called conservative "judges" who may hold somewhat decent views on some things, yet have openly advocated shredding the right of individuals to be secure from the State in their person and papers.

Hey Bryan, maybe it's just time to rename this place JohnMcCainForums.com. Seems like it might be more in line with the popular will...

[specsaregood]

Rand has been making statements and educating people about the fourth amendment his entire political career. He actually did point out Kavanaughs record on the fourth amendment, he said it sardonically saying I wonder how many more he will wipe out. It fell on deaf ears, he would of got attacked for persuing it, the same way that Judge Napolitano got attacked for it.

He pointed it out as a problem and got himself a private meeting with Kavanaugh for his efforts. He came away from the meeting convinced he was worth backing. That is good enough for me.

[A Son of Liberty]

Rand has been making statements and educating people about the fourth amendment his entire political career. He actually did point out Kavanaughs record on the fourth amendment, he said it sardonically saying I wonder how many more he will wipe out. It fell on deaf ears, he would of got attacked for persuing it, the same way that Judge Napolitano got attacked for it.

I prefer politicians who, when they make statements their advocates don't have to say to me, "what he meant to say was...", or "what he really means is...", or "he's playing 6D chess". Maybe there is value in that, but when you don't trust the political class - and I don't know why anyone would - it does nothing for me. I ain't a sucker.

[nikcers]

I prefer politicians who, when they make statements their advocates don't have to say to me, "what he meant to say was...", or "what he really means is...", or "he's playing 6D chess". Maybe there is value in that, but when you don't trust the political class - and I don't know why anyone would - it does nothing for me. I ain't a sucker.
I am not Rand's advocate, I understand his political strategy completely. Does his political strategy have a weakness? Yes, if they make the issue into a partisan circus Rand has to tip toe around the issue otherwise they will smear Rand with Trump's supporters. Rand's political strategy is to attribute libertarian policies and ideas into the presidents platform by helping him achieve his vision that they both share. If you don't want to spread those ideas than move or get out of the way.

[dannno]

For the record, it is both amazing and sad that this discussion is even happening here. The destruction of 4A was at one time something of a unifying principle at this site. Now we're about parsing so-called conservative "judges" who may hold somewhat decent views on some things, yet have openly advocated shredding the right of individuals to be secure from the State in their person and papers.

Hey Bryan, maybe it's just time to rename this place JohnMcCainForums.com. Seems like it might be more in line with the popular will...

Hopefully this type of nonsense will end when Kavanaugh actually votes to support the 4th amendment, since you clearly aren't reading what others have posted here from Reason and such, since you don't wish to educate yourself about the topic.

[specsaregood]

For the record, it is both amazing and sad that this discussion is even happening here. The destruction of 4A was at one time something of a unifying principle at this site. Now we're about parsing so-called conservative "judges" who may hold somewhat decent views on some things, yet have openly advocated shredding the right of individuals to be secure from the State in their person and papers.

Hey Bryan, maybe it's just time to rename this place JohnMcCainForums.com. Seems like it might be more in line with the popular will...

you are welcome to leave. we won't mind.

[A Son of Liberty]

I am not Rand's advocate, I understand his political strategy completely. Does his political strategy have a weakness? Yes, if they make the issue into a partisan circus Rand has to tip toe around the issue otherwise they will smear Rand with Trump's supporters. Rand's political strategy is to attribute libertarian policies and ideas into the presidents platform by helping him achieve his vision that they both share. If you don't want to spread those ideas than move or get out of the way.

lol "move or get out of the way".

Christ, listen to you... you sound like Hillary.

[A Son of Liberty]

you are welcome to leave. we won't mind.

After you. It's not me who's upending the namesake of this place.

ETA:

Just wanted to cite my full post to which specs responded:


For the record, it is both amazing and sad that this discussion is even happening here. The destruction of 4A was at one time something of a unifying principle at this site. Now we're about parsing so-called conservative "judges" who may hold somewhat decent views on some things, yet have openly advocated shredding the right of individuals to be secure from the State in their person and papers.

For that, at RPF, I'm told to show myself to the door.

So outrageous of me, to be sure. What was I thinking, finding a PATRIOT ACT apologist unacceptable for SCOTUS. What a detriment to liberty I am. What a vile, vile statist. I must be like Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler all rolled up into one.

WTF RPF...

[A Son of Liberty]

Hopefully this type of nonsense will end when Kavanaugh actually votes to support the 4th amendment, since you clearly aren't reading what others have posted here from Reason and such, since you don't wish to educate yourself about the topic.

"Hopefully this type of nonsense will end..." AFTER Kavanaugh proves - as an associate Justice - that he's worthy of defending the constitution.

That's an OUTSTANDING liberty argument you have right there.

Fuck's sake... this place anymore...

[nikcers]

lol "move or get out of the way".

Christ, listen to you... you sound like Hillary.

I sound like Hillary because I don't want to obstruct Rand's plans to introduce liberty into the Trump platform in order to promote the ideas to the most amount of people possible? :rolleyes:

[A Son of Liberty]

I sound like Hillary because I don't want to obstruct Rand's plans to introduce liberty into the Trump platform in order to promote the ideas to the most amount of people possible? :rolleyes:

No. You sounds like Hillary because "than [sic] move or get out of the way".

I stepped into this thread because I find Kavanaugh's position on 4A to be ATROCIOUS. That's not an UNREASONABLE position for liberty-minded folks to stake out... or at least it wasn't, time ago. Now, because I find it unacceptable that Rand - who is supposedly a standard-bearer of the liberty movement in FedGov - gave Kavanaugh a pass on what should be an i/o proposition here, I'm told to "get out of the way"... at RONPAULFORUMS.

Seriously!?

What the FUCK happened here?! Somehow, my POV is the problem.

YOU GET OUT.

[r3volution 3.0]

After voting for Kavanaugh, he has no 4A credibility.

That depends on what we mean by "credibility."

Do I believe that Rand believes in the 4th amendment? Yes

Do I believe that Rand can be relied upon to defend it when it's politically difficult to do so? ...not so much these days

[dannno]

You sounds like Hillary because "than [sic] move or get out of the way".

Sounds more like Not Sure

[A Son of Liberty]

That depends on what we mean by "credibility."

Do I believe that Rand believes in the 4th amendment? Yes

Do I believe that Rand can be relied upon to defend it when it's politically difficult to do so? ...not so much these days


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again.

//

[nikcers]

What the $#@! happened here?! Somehow, my POV is the problem.

YOU GET OUT.

Your point of view is that Rand should quit trying to influence policy and propagate ideas of liberty because we can't pick the Supreme court nominee. For one thing the establishment took away the filabuster- Tell me genius how does Rand influence people people into thinking that we should change policy if they think he is just part of the fake news attacking the nominee, because that's all people would see if they saw Rand obstructing the nomination, they would think he is part of the establishment because the establishment was attacking the nominee.

[A Son of Liberty]

Your point of view is that Rand should quit trying to influence policy and propagate ideas of liberty because we can't pick the Supreme court nominee. For one thing the establishment took away the filabuster- Tell me genius how does Rand influence people people into thinking that we should change policy if they think he is just part of the fake news attacking the nominee, because that's all people would see if they saw Rand obstructing the nomination, they would think he is part of the establishment because the establishment was attacking the nominee.

My point of view is that liberty-minded people should be highlighting the importance of, for example, the 4A protections in the constitution...

Ron constantly found opportunities to speak to the people about these rights, and why they're important. As a consequence, he taught a helluva lot of people about the principles undergirding the constitution, myself included. Had he played ball, I and millions more - many of whom USED to regular this site - wouldn't have ever learned a THING about freedom.

[thoughtomator]

Nonsense, and if you were around when it mattered, you'd know it.

I've been around for coming-on 30 years now. I was involved with both RP campaigns. I've been a delegate to quite a few county, CD, and state-level conventions.

I was also the key figure that caused Eric Cantor to lose his race, and also during that campaign directly caused him via political pressure to lift the leadership block on the Benghazi Commission.

Which means, if not for what I did, you would never have heard of Clinton's email server and she would be President of the United States today, and have appointed a far-left hardcore Communist to that seat instead of Kavanaugh.

Taking out a House majority leader was an unprecedented feat, by the way. It had never happened before and has not happened since, and is not likely to happen again in our lifetimes.

If you're going to attack someone for not having done enough for liberty, you could not have picked a worse target for that charge. I've made more of a real world difference in the fight for liberty than every other user of this site combined, and the contest isn't a close one.


I now invite you to list all your accomplishments in the service of the cause of liberty, or alternatively, to issue a sincere and well-owed apology for the improper resort to ignorant ad hominem.

[thoughtomator]

You mean Representative, since Senators are Congressmen as well. And I've said many times before that if Ron had been a Senator I think he might have voted/behaved much more like Randal than some people believe. The roles are different with good reason.

"Congressman" refers to Representatives specifically in its primary usage, FYI.

[angelatc]

Hopefully this type of nonsense will end when Kavanaugh actually votes to support the 4th amendment, since you clearly aren't reading what others have posted here from Reason and such, since you don't wish to educate yourself about the topic.

Now that Matt has us fighting with each other, he left. Every single time.

[Swordsmyth]

Now that Matt has us fighting with each other, he left. Every single time.

I wonder who he really works for......

Whoever it is they want us to fight among ourselves and pursue Pyrrhic ideological victories while the world goes to hell in a hand basket instead of making actual progress towards our goals.

[dannno]

I wonder who he really works for......

Whoever it is they want us to fight among ourselves and pursue Pyrrhic ideological victories while the world goes to hell in a hand basket instead of making actual progress towards our goals.

I could be wrong, but I always thought he just took some political seminar course back in 2008 and took it way too seriously. Like the whole thing became his Bible.

[Swordsmyth]

I could be wrong, but I always thought he just took some political seminar course back in 2008 and took it way too seriously. Like the whole thing became his Bible.
That's possible but it would also make a great cover story.

[A Son of Liberty]

I've been around for coming-on 30 years now. I was involved with both RP campaigns. I've been a delegate to quite a few county, CD, and state-level conventions.

I was also the key figure that caused Eric Cantor to lose his race, and also during that campaign directly caused him via political pressure to lift the leadership block on the Benghazi Commission.

Which means, if not for what I did, you would never have heard of Clinton's email server and she would be President of the United States today, and have appointed a far-left hardcore Communist to that seat instead of Kavanaugh.

Taking out a House majority leader was an unprecedented feat, by the way. It had never happened before and has not happened since, and is not likely to happen again in our lifetimes.

If you're going to attack someone for not having done enough for liberty, you could not have picked a worse target for that charge. I've made more of a real world difference in the fight for liberty than every other user of this site combined, and the contest isn't a close one.


I now invite you to list all your accomplishments in the service of the cause of liberty, or alternatively, to issue a sincere and well-owed apology for the improper resort to ignorant ad hominem.

Well I'm not as old as you, so you'll have to forgive me for only being around since '08, but in that time I've served as a country chair for C4L, canvased and door-to-door'd for Ron during the '12 run; I've hosted speaking events for my local community by minor "celebrities" in the liberty movement...

But the point wasn't to engage in a dick-measuring contest between you and I, obviously. It was to highlight the rather stark differences between the approach that Ron took - which was largely uncompromising, and resulted in a legitimate movement of engaged, mostly younger converts to the cause, versus the rather cynical and uninspiring approach of going-along-to-get-along, and hope for some scraps from the table that Rand seems to employ.

At the end of the day, I'm not here to run Rand down... it's just that it gets awfully frustrating reading post after post abusing the very methods that brought most of us here (if you go back to my first post in this thread, you'll see that's exactly what I was getting at).

Don't forget your roots, and don't forget all the good that the "absolutist" approach did. This place probably wouldn't even be a PLACE if it wasn't for it...

[dannno]

At the end of the day, I'm not here to run Rand down... it's just that it gets awfully frustrating reading post after post abusing the very methods that brought most of us here (if you go back to my first post in this thread, you'll see that's exactly what I was getting at).

Don't forget your roots, and don't forget all the good that the "absolutist" approach did. This place probably wouldn't even be a PLACE if it wasn't for it...


The best strategy would be a multi-pronged strategy with people like Ron and people like Rand. But like times 100.

Ron is better at being Ron, and Rand is better at being Rand. Ron shouldn't try to be Rand and Rand should wait to be more like Ron until it serves the movement better to do so.

[thoughtomator]

It was to highlight the rather stark differences between the approach that Ron took - which was largely uncompromising, and resulted in a legitimate movement of engaged, mostly younger converts to the cause, versus the rather cynical and uninspiring approach of going-along-to-get-along, and hope for some scraps from the table that Rand seems to employ.

There are many positive roles to be played in the quest for liberty, and they ALL need to be filled in order to make the project work. Ron filled one of those roles, Rand fills a different one. All us little people on the ground fill roles too.

They don't all have to be the same role, to contribute to the same goal.

[Swordsmyth]

The best strategy would be a multi-pronged strategy with people like Ron and people like Rand. But like times 100.

Ron is better at being Ron, and Rand is better at being Rand. Ron shouldn't try to be Rand and Rand should wait to be more like Ron until it serves the movement better to do so.
1 Corinthians
Chapter 12



14 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-12-14/)For the body is not one member, but many.
15 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-12-15/)If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-12-16/)And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-12-17/)If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-12-18/)But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-12-19/)And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-12-20/)But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-12-21/)And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

[specsaregood]

I wonder who he really works for......

Whoever it is they want us to fight among ourselves and pursue Pyrrhic ideological victories while the world goes to hell in a hand basket instead of making actual progress towards our goals.

Too bad you weren't around for his Truffle Shuffle.

[thoughtomator]

The best strategy would be a multi-pronged strategy with people like Ron and people like Rand. But like times 100.

Ron is better at being Ron, and Rand is better at being Rand. Ron shouldn't try to be Rand and Rand should wait to be more like Ron until it serves the movement better to do so.

Exactly. And people like you and me being active, independent forces, each with his own agency, seeking out every opportunity to advance the cause.

Our independence of mind and character and action is our best feature. It would be insane not to put it to full use!

And in terms of method, we need to be incremental, as Ron noted. So our guys don't need to be pure - they just need to be better than the guys they replaced. And when we have the luxury of doing even better than the current guys, we can upgrade. Right now it's all we can do to stick in enough guys who are good enough to slow down Leviathan and put it into a turn.

There's a crapload of work to be done, and it ain't being done by the guys who are too pure to get their hands dirty. The Founders were a collection of flawed men who produced something greater than themselves, and so shall be we.

[angelatc]

Too bad you weren't around for his Truffle Shuffle.

He actually threatened to sue people who saved it.

[Matt Collins]

It fell on deaf ears, he would of got attacked for persuing it, the same way that Judge Napolitano got attacked for it.That's why we sent him there, to take the tough positions and stand on principle regardless of what others think. Not bow to political winds and pressures.

[Matt Collins]

He pointed it out as a problem and got himself a private meeting with Kavanaugh for his efforts. He came away from the meeting convinced he was worth backing. That is good enough for me.Then you are as naive as he is. Politics 101: private promises mean nothing. And in this case public promises don't really mean much more either since there is zero ways to hold a Justice accountable after the fact.

[Matt Collins]

The best strategy would be a multi-pronged strategy with people like Ron and people like Rand. But like times 100.

Ron is better at being Ron, and Rand is better at being Rand. Ron shouldn't try to be Rand and Rand should wait to be more like Ron until it serves the movement better to do so.
No, Rand's strategy failed here. A bad SCOTUS nominee was seated and Rand helped do it without offering any resistance at all. That is 100% failed leadership.

[Matt Collins]

That depends on what we mean by "credibility."

Do I believe that Rand believes in the 4th amendment? Yes

Do I believe that Rand can be relied upon to defend it when it's politically difficult to do so? ...not so much these days
Perhaps a valid point.

[dannno]

No, Rand's strategy failed here. A bad SCOTUS nominee was seated and Rand helped do it without offering any resistance at all. That is 100% failed leadership.

What would the outcome have been, do you suppose, had he done what you said? Would it have promoted liberty better in the long run?

[A Son of Liberty]

There are many positive roles to be played in the quest for liberty, and they ALL need to be filled in order to make the project work. Ron filled one of those roles, Rand fills a different one. All us little people on the ground fill roles too.

They don't all have to be the same role, to contribute to the same goal.



There's a crapload of work to be done, and it ain't being done by the guys who are too pure to get their hands dirty. The Founders were a collection of flawed men who produced something greater than themselves, and so shall be we.

Welp, that didn't last very long.

lol, oh well. You guys just keep compromising. Sooner or later, you'll forget what you actually stand for. But hey, who needs the 4A anyway!?

As for me, I'll be over here with Ron. Ta.

[A Son of Liberty]

There are many positive roles to be played in the quest for liberty, and they ALL need to be filled in order to make the project work. Ron filled one of those roles, Rand fills a different one. All us little people on the ground fill roles too.

They don't all have to be the same role, to contribute to the same goal.


What would the outcome have been, do you suppose, had he done what you said? Would it have promoted liberty better in the long run?

Do you REALLY believe there was nothing to do but bend to the nominee or risk some political exile? There's no such thing as diplomacy, I guess?

"I respect the office of the President and the authority of the chief executive to appoint Justices. Brett Kavanaugh is a mixed bag, in my view. He is a clear improvement over Anthony Kennedy, at least in terms of the rulings we have before us. However it is my belief, and my duty in my role as a Senator to advise in this process, that there are better choices for this all important role. If the president deems judge Kavanaugh to be the best choice that he can make, then so be it... but the cause of liberty is served more nobly by a nominee such as Mike Lee, or X..."

Nothing so much as that, conjured up by me at 5:30 on a Saturday morning? Something that could have signaled to the people that Rand is a true advocate, even though he must play this game? No? Just drop immediately to thine knees before Trump and Kavanaugh, grasp firmly in-hand and go to work, huh?

We have different ideas about what serves liberty in the long run.

Again, shame what's come of this place.

[Anti Federalist]

That aside, I'd say getting rape hoaxed the way he did is going to make Kavanaugh treat the 4th a lot more seriously than anyone is giving him credit for now.

This.

[kpitcher]

That aside, I'd say getting rape hoaxed the way he did is going to make Kavanaugh treat the 4th a lot more seriously than anyone is giving him credit for now.

I view it the opposite, seems like a reason he'd be for more big brother and advocating recording everything possible so 30 years later they can bring up old emails, phone calls, phone locations to help show the innocence of the politically connected.

[Anti Federalist]

Too bad you weren't around for his Truffle Shuffle.

I still have still shots of that.

[William Tell]

That assumes this statement is true. How far does his "influence" extend? When push comes to shove does he actually have any leverage over Trump's foreign policy? I doubt it, unless of course he is using it in the regard of voting a certain way in the Senate.

Rand it appears has sold out power for access, what we call the "Access trap"... Yeah he may have Trump's year, but at what cost?
I said policy not foreign policy, you are a single issue guy?. Rand may have a little influence on foreign policy, not nearly enough for sure. But he directly convinced the president to act on healthcare. That's influence however you look at it. Some of the Trump fans here might have more examples, but this one was obvious.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/354663-rand-paul-ive-been-working-with-trump-for-months-on-health-care-order

[phill4paul]

Now that Matt has us fighting with each other, he left. Every single time.

^^^THIS^^^

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to angelatc again.

[timosman]

^^^THIS^^^

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to angelatc again.

http://images2.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED51/523c86e133c13.jpeg

[Matt Collins]

What would the outcome have been, do you suppose, had he done what you said? Would it have promoted liberty better in the long run?
Best case scenerio, Trump would have been forced to go with someone better as the nominee.

Worst case scenario, Rand is the lone guy standing up for principle and makes a great case as to why Kavanaugh shouldn't be on the court and the 4th Amendment / Patriot Act gets discussed forefront and center of the news for days or weeks on end shaming both parties who participated in it, but ultimately Kavanaugh gets confirmed anyway and Rand takes a lot of heat but in the end stays steadfast.

[nbhadja]

The statists have long since taken over.

Wrong. This is bad political strategy that is guaranteed to let the progressives win. Settle for nothing less than 100%, go on the offensive at every opportunity. And there was a choice that was better than Kavanuagh, Trump didn't even want him.

Libertarians are the worst group when it comes to political strategy and actually getting results/stuff done. There is a reason they are irrelevant and have accomplished nothing. A group of 5 year olds can outproduce the results of Libertarians in the modern era. If we listened to the purist libertarians we would have president Hillary Clinton right now. They incrementally (not instantly) took over America and we will incrementally take it back, not instantly. The idea that we will magically elect only 100% pure libertarians and take back the government that way is beyond delusional. It has never worked and never will.

Trump is doing more for the liberty movement than any purist Libertarian ever will.

[nbhadja]

Communists are statists. You need to lean what a Venn Diagram is.


Incorrect. It is possible Rand could have forced his hand and had Mike Lee chosen instead. That was a very realistic possibility. However, given the way things went down, Rand still could have voted against Kavanaugh, standing on principle, and Trump's nominee would have gotten seated anyway. There was margin.

And what do you think would have happened to Rand's political future and future reelection chances if he voted against Kavanaugh?

You have to have long term political strategy. Going scorched earth will only result in defeat and accomplish nothing.

[dannno]

Best case scenerio, Trump would have been forced to go with someone better as the nominee.

Worst case scenario, Rand is the lone guy standing up for principle and makes a great case as to why Kavanaugh shouldn't be on the court and the 4th Amendment / Patriot Act gets discussed forefront and center of the news for days or weeks on end shaming both parties who participated in it, but ultimately Kavanaugh gets confirmed anyway and Rand takes a lot of heat but in the end stays steadfast.

You forgot what was probably actually going to happen - we would have ended up with a WORSE nominee...

[thoughtomator]

I view it the opposite, seems like a reason he'd be for more big brother and advocating recording everything possible so 30 years later they can bring up old emails, phone calls, phone locations to help show the innocence of the politically connected.

All that still can't prove innocence, though.

If an accuser and the accused were actually in the same place same time alone 25 years ago and nothing happened, how does the accused defend himself? No amount of recordkeeping short of real-time, full time video and/or monitoring of vital signs could reasonably establish innocence, and even then there would still be instances where it would be ambiguous.

No, I think he's quite inteligent enough to understand that what happened to him makes the accused practically defenseless and turns it into a political question rather than a question of law. That's why he ripped into them in his defense, and rightly so. He already understood this on that day, that he was being tried for accusations against which a completely innocent person has no sure defense, in a political court rather than a court of law.

Regular people don't have access to national security collections to make defense cases, either. Not even he had access to that for his defense.

[Swordsmyth]

^^^THIS^^^

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to angelatc again.

Covered.

[A Son of Liberty]

This.

lol how comforting. Definitely make it all seem worth it. Thanks for stopping by lol

[Matt Collins]

I said policy not foreign policy, you are a single issue guy?. Rand may have a little influence on foreign policy, not nearly enough for sure. But he directly convinced the president to act on healthcare. That's influence however you look at it. Some of the Trump fans here might have more examples, but this one was obvious.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/354663-rand-paul-ive-been-working-with-trump-for-months-on-health-care-order
The goal should be power, not influence.

[Swordsmyth]

The goal should be power, not influence.
Rand has all the power he can get right now, influence is a bonus.

[Matt Collins]

You forgot what was probably actually going to happen - we would have ended up with a WORSE nominee...
Unlikely. Trump wanted someone better but he was strong armed into Kavanaugh by the deep state. Besides, on the 4th Amendment there isn't anyone really worse than Kavanaugh.

Mike Lee and one or two other people on his short list would have been better than Kavanaugh.

[Matt Collins]

And what do you think would have happened to Rand's political future and future reelection chances if he voted against Kavanaugh?Nothing. He would keep getting reelected, assuming he is even running again.

[Matt Collins]

Libertarians are the worst group when it comes to political strategy and actually getting results/stuff done. There is a reason they are irrelevant and have accomplished nothing. A group of 5 year olds can outproduce the results of Libertarians in the modern era. If we listened to the purist libertarians we would have president Hillary Clinton right now. They incrementally (not instantly) took over America and we will incrementally take it back, not instantly. The idea that we will magically elect only 100% pure libertarians and take back the government that way is beyond delusional. It has never worked and never will.

Trump is doing more for the liberty movement than any purist Libertarian ever will.There are a few books you need to read because you clearly do not understand how political strategy.

1- Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

2- Confrontational Politics

[Matt Collins]

Rand has all the power he can get right now, influence is a bonus.
Untrue. He has very little power, and what he does have he isn't using.

[eleganz]

Don't care. Still donating to Rand, Justin and Thomas on a regular basis.

I'll never understand why the so-called friends of liberty will go to the end of the Earth to trash one of the few political successes we've had. It's not like Ron is waiting in the wings to take over the seat or something.

If Napoleon's Shadow's wet dream comes true - we get discouraged and stop supporting Rand....then what? The GOP gets a new senator that's friendlier to them than us?

Great game plan there, Matt.


Someone give a rep for me on this post since I'm low on ammo.

Anyway, anybody kept track of how many Rand sucks threads teh collinz has made thus far?

[r3volution 3.0]

Untrue. He has very little power, and what he does have he isn't using.

Outside very rare circumstances, he has no power to change the outcome of votes.

The only real benefit to the liberty movement of having Senator Paul is that he can make a lot of noise.

Senators get a lot more press than some random guy waving a sign on the street corner.

But, as you say, Rand hasn't used this power very effectively in recent years.

[Matt Collins]

Outside very rare circumstances, he has no power to change the outcome of votes.With a Senate this tight, it is possible he may have had an opportunity here.


The only real benefit to the liberty movement of having Senator Paul is that he can make a lot of noise.Rand has done a lot of good things besides making noise. He has forced votes and amendments that they didn't want to do. But that was mostly when Obama was in office. Now since it is Republicans in control of things he doesn't seem to be standing firm like he used to.

[r3volution 3.0]

With a Senate this tight, it is possible he may have had an opportunity here.

Not according to the final vote tally, but, yes, had he made some noise earlier, things might have changed.

The narrative would certainly have changed, which would have made it worthwhile.


Rand has done a lot of good things besides making noise. He has forced votes and amendments that they didn't want to do. But that was mostly when Obama was in office. Now since it is Republicans in control of things he doesn't seem to be standing firm like he used to.

I'd call that noise (not intended as a disparaging description of what he can do), except where it actually changed which bills passed.

[UWDude]

There are a few books you need to read because you clearly do not understand how political strategy.

1- Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

2- Confrontational Politics


These days it is. The same little $#@!er that was allowed to destroy the grassroots activity with sock puppets and trolling in the forums is now back here using the same tactics, trying to destroy the support for Rand? If he had any shame, he'd be embarrassed to post here.

Think I found Zip.

Twas matt all along.

Traffic here is dead.

And admit it, some people love to come here, just to laugh at Zip when he is wrong again.
You come to get your jabs in and mock him, etc.
He must be a foil.

Just like Kanye. Everybody hates Kanye, but everybody is talking about Kanye, and getting ratings for it.

But you gotta keep the tank stirring and boiling.

You gotta keep the flint on steel.

Yup.

[nikcers]

That's why we sent him there, to take the tough positions and stand on principle regardless of what others think. Not bow to political winds and pressures.

Don't you think that treating the illness instead of symptoms is the only approach Rand Paul would take to any sort of problem? Rand was able to go on the news and criticize Trumps foreign policy on fox and Trumps supporters don't freak out about it because Rand is considered to be not opposition to the president.

[William Tell]

The goal should be power, not influence.Oh boohoo, Rand is changing policy but not enough he's so bad and it's all his fault that America is not free enough...:sorrow:

[Matt Collins]

I'd call that noise (not intended as a disparaging description of what he can do), except where it actually changed which bills passed.
Getting politicians on record for a vote is actually one of the most important things one can do as a legislator. This record can then be used against them to take them out or at least cause them pain the next election. Legislators like to do nothing but if you force them to go on record it exposes them. This is very useful come election time.

[Matt Collins]

Oh boohoo, Rand is changing policy but not enough he's so bad and it's all his fault that America is not free enough...:sorrow:
If you don't understand the nature of power, how it is acquired, and how it works, then you will end up chasing your tail. Having power is very different then having influence. You don't want influence, you want power.


The best analogy I can make is fiat currency vs owning hard assets.

[r3volution 3.0]

Getting politicians on record for a vote is actually one of the most important things one can do as a legislator. This record can then be used against them to take them out or at least cause them pain the next election. Legislators like to do nothing but if you force them to go on record it exposes them. This is very useful come election time.

Agreed

[jmdrake]

Only if there is an active crime occurring (a violent crime, theft or otherwise, not a drug crime or something) - as opposed to a suspected crime, or a known non-violent crime.

A) Since when is theft a violent crime? Robbery is theft by violence. Which means that regular theft is, by definition, non violent. I wouldn't want to see a police drone gun down a shoplifter for example.

and

B) From the desk of Ron Paul.

http://www.libertarianprepper.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ron-paul-do-not-steal.jpg

[pcosmar]

You forgot what was probably actually going to happen - we would have ended up with a WORSE nominee...

Who?

Been lied to by everyone in office so far. and have no trust for any.

[Anti-Neocon]

I wonder who he really works for......

Whoever it is they want us to fight among ourselves and pursue Pyrrhic ideological victories while the world goes to hell in a hand basket instead of making actual progress towards our goals.
Matt Collins is DEEP STATE.

https://consequenceofsound.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/alex-jones-infowars-spotify-boycott.png?w=807

Anyone not scared yet?

What are "your goals"? They sure aren't mine so don't say "our" like a collectivist. Apparently defending the 4th Amendment doesn't seem to be one of your "our goals" though.

I also remember you posting a picture essentially glorifying the image of King Trump.

Why is it that you seem to gravitate authoritarianism and put down liberty?

Who's the real snake in the grass?

[Swordsmyth]

Matt Collins is DEEP STATE.

https://consequenceofsound.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/alex-jones-infowars-spotify-boycott.png?w=807

Anyone not scared yet?

What are "your goals"? They sure aren't mine so don't say "our" like a collectivist. Apparently defending the 4th Amendment doesn't seem to be one of your "our goals" though.

I also remember you posting a picture essentially glorifying the image of King Trump.

Why is it that you seem to gravitate authoritarianism and put down liberty?

Who's the real snake in the grass?
Utter garbage, I support the 4thA and said many times I wanted someone better than Kavanaugh, the only times I posted Trump praising images were when he did good things and I never "put down liberty".

Matt has made it his mission in life to destroy the best Senator we have who has done more for liberty than Matt ever will over disagreements about strategy, he is the snake in the grass.

[Matt Collins]

Matt has made it his mission in life to destroy the best Senator we have He used to be the best Senator we had, now he seems to be more and more just like the rest of them.

[phill4paul]

He used to be the best Senator we had, now he seems to be more and more just like the rest of them.

Not anywhere near "the rest of them." By any litmus.

[Anti-Neocon]

Utter garbage, I support the 4thA and said many times I wanted someone better than Kavanaugh, the only times I posted Trump praising images were when he did good things and I never "put down liberty".
Your posts every day such as this one "put down liberty" by providing cover for someone who you did post imagery of looking like some sort of authoritarian boss. I see where your heart is, at the very least you seem to have a fondness for overwhelming executive power. So does Kavanaugh.

Matt has made it his mission in life to destroy the best Senator we have who has done more for liberty than Matt ever will over disagreements about strategy, he is the snake in the grass.
You Trump supporters consistently cheerlead an outspoken enemy of liberty. Matt here is attacking our best hope for not delivering when it was arguably most crucial. Gasp, how could we possibly feel betrayed when Rand misses an opportunity to make the 4th Amendment a national issue and promises early to lend his support to the kind of man who demonstrated that he believes in essentially Presidential immunity, and that the 4th Amendment can be used as toilet paper?

Where are Kavanaugh's hidden records from during the Bush reign of terror? We STILL haven't seen them.

But rah-rah-rah "at least they aren't Democrats". Democrats are often better on issues of civil liberties and defending amendments that aren't the 2nd.

[Swordsmyth]

He used to be the best Senator we had, now he seems to be more and more just like the rest of them.

See what I mean folks?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Sen. Rand Paul (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000603) - 94%

Sen. Doug Jones (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=J000300) - 30%
Sen. Richard Shelby (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000320) - 65%
Sen. Claire McCaskill (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001170) - 18%
Sen. Roy Blunt (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B000575) - 56%
Sen. Dan Sullivan (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001198) - 62%
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001153) - 48%
Sen. Steve Daines (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000618) - 68%
Sen. Jon Tester (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=T000464) - 24%
Sen. Jeff Flake (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=F000444) - 80%
Sen. John McCain (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000303) - 62%
Sen. John Kyl (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000352) - 72%
Sen. Benjamin Sasse (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001197) - 72%
Sen. Deb Fischer (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=F000463) - 66%
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001113) - 7%
Sen. Dean Heller (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001041) - 70%
Sen. John Boozman (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001236) - 57%
Sen. Tom Cotton (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001095) - 64%
Sen. Margaret Hassan (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001076) - 14%
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001181) - 8%
Sen. Kamala Harris (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001075) - 24%
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=F000062) - 13%
Sen. Cory Booker (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001288) - 17%
Sen. Robert Menendez (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000639) - 18%
Sen. Martin Heinrich (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001046) - 13%
Sen. Tom Udall (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=U000039) - 20%
Sen. Charles Schumer (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000148) - 15%
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000555) - 15%
Sen. Cory Gardner (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000562) - 64%
Sen. Michael Bennet (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001267) - 11%
Sen. Thom Tillis (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=T000476) - 55%
Sen. Richard Burr (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001135) - 57%
Sen. Christopher Murphy (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001169) - 15%
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001277) - 14%
Sen. John Hoeven (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001061) - 54%
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001069) - 20%
Sen. Chris Coons (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001088) - 11%
Sen. Thomas Carper (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C000174) - 14%
Sen. Robert Portman (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000449) - 51%
Sen. Sherrod Brown (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B000944) - 23%
Sen. Bill Nelson (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=N000032) - 12%
Sen. Marco Rubio (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000595) - 72%
Sen. James Lankford (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000575) - 68%
Sen. James Inhofe (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=I000024) - 71%
Sen. Ron Wyden (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000779) - 18%
Sen. Jeff Merkley (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001176) - 17%
Sen. David Perdue (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000612) - 63%
Sen. John Isakson (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=I000055) - 54%
Sen. Patrick Toomey (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=T000461) - 67%
Sen. Robert Casey (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001070) - 11%
Sen. Mazie Hirono (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001042) - 14%
Sen. Brian Schatz (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001194) - 12%
Sen. John Reed (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000122) - 15%
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000802) - 12%
Sen. James Risch (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000584) - 79%
Sen. Michael Crapo (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C000880) - 69%
Sen. Tim Scott (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001184) - 72%
Sen. Lindsey Graham (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000359) - 60%
Sen. Richard Durbin (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000563) - 13%
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000622) - 13%
Sen. John Thune (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=T000250) - 58%
Sen. Mike Rounds (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000605) - 51%
Sen. Lamar Alexander (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=A000360) - 52%
Sen. Bob Corker (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001071) - 65%
Sen. Joe Donnelly (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000607) - 22%
Sen. Todd Young (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=Y000064) - 58%
Sen. Ted Cruz (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001098) - 78%
Sen. John Cornyn (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001056) - 66%
Sen. Joni Ernst (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=E000295) - 59%
Sen. Charles Grassley (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000386) - 63%
Sen. Jerry Moran (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000934) - 65%
Sen. Pat Roberts (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000307) - 61%
Sen. Mitch McConnell (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000355) - 60%
Sen. Bill Cassidy (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001075) - 64%
Sen. John Kennedy (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000393) - 60%
Sen. Mike Lee (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000577) - 92%
Sen. Orrin Hatch (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H000338) - 57%
Sen. Angus King (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000383) - 15%
Sen. Susan Collins (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001035) - 40%
Sen. Bernard Sanders (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000033) - 28%
Sen. Patrick Leahy (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000174) - 16%
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C000141) - 17%
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=V000128) - 20%
Sen. Timothy Kaine (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000384) - 8%
Sen. Mark Warner (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000805) - 11%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000817) - 16%
Sen. Edward Markey (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000133) - 23%
Sen. Maria Cantwell (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C000127) - 14%
Sen. Patty Murray (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001111) - 12%
Sen. Gary Peters (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000595) - 17%
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000770) - 17%
Sen. Shelley Capito (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001047) - 48%
Sen. Joe Manchin (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001183) - 32%
Sen. Tina Smith (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001203) - 40%
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000367) - 10%
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001230) - 25%
Sen. Ron Johnson (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=J000293) - 70%
Sen. Tina Smith (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001203) - 40%
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000367) - 10%
Sen. John Barrasso (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001261) - 73%
Sen. Michael Enzi (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=E000285) - 70%
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001079) - 60%
Sen. Roger Wicker (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000437) - 54%


TWO OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT LIKE THE OTHERS.


But Matt Snake in the grass Collins wants to destroy the best one.

[Swordsmyth]

Your posts every day such as this one "put down liberty" by providing cover for someone who you did post imagery of looking like some sort of authoritarian boss. I see where your heart is, at the very least you seem to have a fondness for overwhelming executive power. So does Kavanaugh.
Yawn, you can't post a single example of me "putting down liberty" so you just babble about your feelings.


You Trump supporters consistently cheerlead an outspoken enemy of liberty. Matt here is attacking our best hope for not delivering when it was arguably most crucial. Gasp, how could we possibly feel betrayed when Rand misses an opportunity to make the 4th Amendment a national issue and promises early to lend his support to the kind of man who demonstrated that he believes in essentially Presidential immunity, and that the 4th Amendment can be used as toilet paper?

Where are Kavanaugh's hidden records from during the Bush reign of terror? We STILL haven't seen them.
Please show one post where I supported the nomination of Kavanaugh.


But rah-rah-rah "at least they aren't Democrats". Democrats are often better on issues of civil liberties and defending amendments that aren't the 2nd.
LOL, once upon a time that MIGHT have been true but the current crop of Demoncrats want to shred the entire Constitution and every amendment and the Republicans have been rediscovering the value of rights they used to ignore.

Rand has made an issue of the 4thA many times and he did bring it up in relation to Kavanaugh, just because Matt snake in the grass Collins and you don't agree with his choice when he didn't have the power to make Trump pick someone better and might have caused Trump to pick someone worse doesn't change that.

[Matt Collins]

Not anywhere near "the rest of them." By any litmus.
Well he has voted for gun control multiple times. He has voted for Kavanaugh and Pompeo. He has supported Mitch. He has voted for sanctions. I didn't say that he was identical to the others, I said he was becoming more and more like the others, which is a true statement.

[Matt Collins]

he didn't have the power to make Trump pick someone better and might have caused Trump to pick someone worse doesn't change that.Uh no, in the beginning he very likely had the power to force Trump to pick someone else. And it wouldn't have been worse... on the 4th Amendment there is no one worse than Kavanaugh.

[Swordsmyth]

Uh no, in the beginning he very likely had the power to force Trump to pick someone else. And it wouldn't have been worse... on the 4th Amendment there is no one worse than Kavanaugh.
Is that the only issue you care about?
Or are you just picking at it to destroy Rand?

There are plenty of judges that would have been just as bad as Kavanaugh on the 4thA and much worse on many other things.
Most of the Judges on Trump's list were much worse than Kavanaugh.

[Swordsmyth]

Well he has voted for gun control multiple times. He has voted for Kavanaugh and Pompeo. He has supported Mitch. He has voted for sanctions. I didn't say that he was identical to the others, I said he was becoming more and more like the others, which is a true statement.

He actually seems to be improving:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000603

96% (115th Congress: 2017-2018); 92% (114th Congress: 2015-2016); 92% (113th Congress: 2013-2014); 94% (112th Congress: 2011-2012)

[phill4paul]

Well he has voted for gun control multiple times. He has voted for Kavanaugh and Pompeo. He has supported Mitch. He has voted for sanctions. I didn't say that he was identical to the others, I said he was becoming more and more like the others, which is a true statement.

You are not going to get everything you want in every elected politician. He's not becoming more and more like the others. It is a false statement. At best an over the top exaggeration. You're just an idiot. Don't know why I even bother except to dispel your F.U.D. He's a Senator advancing liberty as he can. You're not. Get over it.

[Krugminator2]

. Democrats are often better on issues of civil liberties and defending amendments that aren't the 2nd.

Which amendments specifically? You used that in the plural. ALL the liberal justices are horrific on the 1st Amendment compared to the conservative judges. Obviously terrible on the second. Are they even better on the 4th Amendment? All the liberal judges supported eminent domain in the Kelo decision. Seems bad. I doubt they are better than Scalia was and Gorsuch on search and seizure stuff. Obviously terrible on the 10th Amendment.

I know it is a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson talking point that liberals are better on civil liberties issues. It is really isn't true though. Antonin Scalia and Thomas were faarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr better than Ruth Bader Ginsburg civil liberties. It isn't even close. Making nuns pay for contraception, bakers bake penis cakes, limiting political speech in the form of campaign contributions, seizing property for economic private economic development are issues where liberal judges are just bad.

Maybe they are better on the major issue of quartering soldiers.

[Matt Collins]

He's a Senator advancing liberty as he can. Voting to confirm Kavanaugh and Pompeo and voting for gun control is NOT "advancing liberty".... you fail at logic. :down:

[Swordsmyth]

Voting to confirm Kavanaugh and Pompeo and voting for gun control is NOT "advancing liberty".... you fail at logic. :down:

THIS is advancing liberty:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Sen. Rand Paul (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000603) - 94%


You fail at logic.

[phill4paul]

Voting to confirm Kavanaugh and Pompeo and voting for gun control is NOT "advancing liberty".... you fail at logic. :down:

And you simply fail. Whatever "chops" you got supporting Ron you've totally squandered. Perhaps if you do another "truffle shuffle" fundraising for Rand you might get taken seriously again. As it stands no one here cares to hear your bitching.

[Matt Collins]

And you simply fail. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

[James_Madison_Lives]

Kavanaugh should not have been confirmed but not for the reasons people think. A block of Constitution First senators needs to be formed.

[Anti-Neocon]

Yawn, you can't post a single example of me "putting down liberty" so you just babble about your feelings.
You seem like a brainwashed by alt-righters; this "babble on about feelings" isn't even relevant and seems to be copied straight from alt-righters.

Please show one post where I supported the nomination of Kavanaugh.
You put a lot of effort into defending him which I still see you doing. Whether or not he got some kind of "official Swordsmyth endorsement" is not even pertinent to the discussion.

LOL, once upon a time that MIGHT have been true but the current crop of Demoncrats want to shred the entire Constitution and every amendment and the Republicans have been rediscovering the value of rights they used to ignore.
The emotion of fear leads you to believe the funniest things.

Rand has made an issue of the 4thA many times and he did bring it up in relation to Kavanaugh, just because Matt snake in the grass Collins and you don't agree with his choice when he didn't have the power to make Trump pick someone better and might have caused Trump to pick someone worse doesn't change that.
He had the chance to bring the 4th Amendment into the national public discourse and confirmation hearings. Instead he lapped up some BS, mainly in private, and went around to offering him his full support.

[homahr]

The emotion of fear leads you to believe the funniest things.


People from both the left and right seem to love to get high on fear. They really need to get high on cannabis instead.

[Anti-Neocon]

Which amendments specifically? You used that in the plural. ALL the liberal justices are horrific on the 1st Amendment compared to the conservative judges. Obviously terrible on the second. Are they even better on the 4th Amendment? All the liberal judges supported eminent domain in the Kelo decision. Seems bad. I doubt they are better than Scalia was and Gorsuch on search and seizure stuff. Obviously terrible on the 10th Amendment.
1: I see more Democrat types care about it in an honest way. However neither side is good on this and you gave examples of the ways that they fail.
3: Nobody really cares about it.
4-9: Liberals definitely care about them more, and stick up for them in the face of the "law and order" and "national security" excuses for a government that crushes people.


I know it is a Ron Paul and Gary Johnson talking point that liberals are better on civil liberties issues. It is really isn't true though. Antonin Scalia and Thomas were faarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr better than Ruth Bader Ginsburg civil liberties. It isn't even close. Making nuns pay for contraception, bakers bake penis cakes, limiting political speech in the form of campaign contributions, seizing property for economic private economic development are issues where liberal judges are just bad.

Maybe they are better on the major issue of quartering soldiers.
I don't think the country will be lost on bakers baking penis cakes. While I don't agree with these stances I don't see them as threatening as those who seem to be okay with turning America into a gulag country. It is ultimately through the criminal justice system and national security excuses where the government can control people in a much more severe way than what most liberals want to do. And now we have someone completely drunk off executive power who just nominated someone who will support him in those aspects.

Anyway, neocons and neoliberals are very similar and share the same positions on many of these issues, and maybe that's why penis cakes end up grabbing all the attention, because they are wedge issues to make the two seem more different than they actually are.

Perhaps this comparison itself is what the statists want us to be having, as we debate which evil is worse.

[Aratus]

Now that Matt has us fighting with each other, he left. Every single time.

Matt Collins lives by his own rules, and acts accordingly.

[Aratus]

Can I quote you on this... Swordsmyth? :)


See what I mean folks?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index


Sen. Rand Paul (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000603) - 94%

Sen. Doug Jones (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=J000300) - 30%
Sen. Richard Shelby (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000320) - 65%
Sen. Claire McCaskill (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001170) - 18%
Sen. Roy Blunt (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B000575) - 56%
Sen. Dan Sullivan (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001198) - 62%
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001153) - 48%
Sen. Steve Daines (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000618) - 68%
Sen. Jon Tester (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=T000464) - 24%
Sen. Jeff Flake (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=F000444) - 80%
Sen. John McCain (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000303) - 62%
Sen. John Kyl (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000352) - 72%
Sen. Benjamin Sasse (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001197) - 72%
Sen. Deb Fischer (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=F000463) - 66%
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001113) - 7%
Sen. Dean Heller (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001041) - 70%
Sen. John Boozman (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001236) - 57%
Sen. Tom Cotton (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001095) - 64%
Sen. Margaret Hassan (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001076) - 14%
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001181) - 8%
Sen. Kamala Harris (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001075) - 24%
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=F000062) - 13%
Sen. Cory Booker (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001288) - 17%
Sen. Robert Menendez (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000639) - 18%
Sen. Martin Heinrich (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001046) - 13%
Sen. Tom Udall (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=U000039) - 20%
Sen. Charles Schumer (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000148) - 15%
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000555) - 15%
Sen. Cory Gardner (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000562) - 64%
Sen. Michael Bennet (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001267) - 11%
Sen. Thom Tillis (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=T000476) - 55%
Sen. Richard Burr (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001135) - 57%
Sen. Christopher Murphy (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001169) - 15%
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001277) - 14%
Sen. John Hoeven (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001061) - 54%
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001069) - 20%
Sen. Chris Coons (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001088) - 11%
Sen. Thomas Carper (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C000174) - 14%
Sen. Robert Portman (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000449) - 51%
Sen. Sherrod Brown (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B000944) - 23%
Sen. Bill Nelson (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=N000032) - 12%
Sen. Marco Rubio (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000595) - 72%
Sen. James Lankford (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000575) - 68%
Sen. James Inhofe (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=I000024) - 71%
Sen. Ron Wyden (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000779) - 18%
Sen. Jeff Merkley (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001176) - 17%
Sen. David Perdue (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000612) - 63%
Sen. John Isakson (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=I000055) - 54%
Sen. Patrick Toomey (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=T000461) - 67%
Sen. Robert Casey (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001070) - 11%
Sen. Mazie Hirono (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001042) - 14%
Sen. Brian Schatz (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001194) - 12%
Sen. John Reed (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000122) - 15%
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000802) - 12%
Sen. James Risch (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000584) - 79%
Sen. Michael Crapo (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C000880) - 69%
Sen. Tim Scott (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001184) - 72%
Sen. Lindsey Graham (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000359) - 60%
Sen. Richard Durbin (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000563) - 13%
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000622) - 13%
Sen. John Thune (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=T000250) - 58%
Sen. Mike Rounds (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000605) - 51%
Sen. Lamar Alexander (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=A000360) - 52%
Sen. Bob Corker (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001071) - 65%
Sen. Joe Donnelly (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=D000607) - 22%
Sen. Todd Young (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=Y000064) - 58%
Sen. Ted Cruz (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001098) - 78%
Sen. John Cornyn (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001056) - 66%
Sen. Joni Ernst (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=E000295) - 59%
Sen. Charles Grassley (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000386) - 63%
Sen. Jerry Moran (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000934) - 65%
Sen. Pat Roberts (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=R000307) - 61%
Sen. Mitch McConnell (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000355) - 60%
Sen. Bill Cassidy (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001075) - 64%
Sen. John Kennedy (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000393) - 60%
Sen. Mike Lee (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000577) - 92%
Sen. Orrin Hatch (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H000338) - 57%
Sen. Angus King (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000383) - 15%
Sen. Susan Collins (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001035) - 40%
Sen. Bernard Sanders (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000033) - 28%
Sen. Patrick Leahy (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=L000174) - 16%
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C000141) - 17%
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=V000128) - 20%
Sen. Timothy Kaine (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000384) - 8%
Sen. Mark Warner (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000805) - 11%
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000817) - 16%
Sen. Edward Markey (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000133) - 23%
Sen. Maria Cantwell (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C000127) - 14%
Sen. Patty Murray (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001111) - 12%
Sen. Gary Peters (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000595) - 17%
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S000770) - 17%
Sen. Shelley Capito (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=C001047) - 48%
Sen. Joe Manchin (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M001183) - 32%
Sen. Tina Smith (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001203) - 40%
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000367) - 10%
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001230) - 25%
Sen. Ron Johnson (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=J000293) - 70%
Sen. Tina Smith (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=S001203) - 40%
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=K000367) - 10%
Sen. John Barrasso (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=B001261) - 73%
Sen. Michael Enzi (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=E000285) - 70%
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=H001079) - 60%
Sen. Roger Wicker (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=W000437) - 54%


TWO OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT LIKE THE OTHERS.


But Matt Snake in the grass Collins wants to destroy the best one.

[Aratus]

Matt Collins was dumping on Mike Lee? :)

[dannno]

on the 4th Amendment there is no one worse than Kavanaugh.

Actually, he may end up being the best.

[Swordsmyth]

You seem like a brainwashed by alt-righters; this "babble on about feelings" isn't even relevant and seems to be copied straight from alt-righters.
That's all you do is babble your emotional viewpoints without any connection to facts.


You put a lot of effort into defending him which I still see you doing. Whether or not he got some kind of "official Swordsmyth endorsement" is not even pertinent to the discussion.
Just plain wrong, I repeatedly said I wanted someone else, my only "defenses" of him were attacks on the Demoncrats for the farcical phony sex attacks that they have decided to use on anyone to the right of Marx.


The emotion of fear leads you to believe the funniest things.
You seem to think that everyone run their life on emotion just because you do, facts lead me to believe what I said.


He had the chance to bring the 4th Amendment into the national public discourse and confirmation hearings. Instead he lapped up some BS, mainly in private, and went around to offering him his full support.
He brought up the 4thA and then he made the best strategic move he could make.

[Swordsmyth]

Can I quote you on this... Swordsmyth? :)

Yes.

[Swordsmyth]

Matt Collins was dumping on Mike Lee? :)

Matt is trying to destroy Rand.

[Aratus]

Matt is trying to destroy Rand.

I think this is way beyond his scope and capacity, assuming this is indeed his goal.
Either Senator Rand Paul is being politically adroit & brilliant by now having both
Donald J. Trump and Mitch McConnell obligated to him, or it might BLUE backfire.

[Krugminator2]

1: I see more Democrat types care about it in an honest way.

Name one First Amendment case that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was stronger on that Antonin Scalia. Besides all of the cases above, is forcing public sector union workers to contribute to Democratic candidates what First Amendment advocates?

My experience is even the most flag waving meathead conservative (let's say Sean Hannity) is far better on the First Amendment that 90% of the people on the left. I guess some liberals are better on flag burning (though Hillary Clinton sponsored an amendment banning flag burning).

[Anti-Neocon]

That's all you do is babble your emotional viewpoints without any connection to facts.
Yeah, there is the false paradigm of emotions vs facts, which is very commonly used in certain circles (I think we know which ones). Ones which are very hysterical I may add.

Just plain wrong, I repeatedly said I wanted someone else, my only "defenses" of him were attacks on the Demoncrats for the farcical phony sex attacks that they have decided to use on anyone to the right of Marx.
Hysterical nonsense.

He brought up the 4thA and then he made the best strategic move he could make.
Strategical for what? If you care about liberty, you should be making your strategic plays so that you can advance liberty in crucial moments. This may be one of the most crucial moments in the decade and Rand sold out.

[Krugminator2]

Strategical for what? If you care about liberty, you should be making your strategic plays so that you can advance liberty in crucial moments. This may be one of the most crucial moments in the decade and Rand sold out.


I am just curious why does almost every libertarian legal person (minus Judge Nap) support Kavanaugh? Is it really selling out when almost all libertarians who know about the law support Kavanaugh?

I get that Kavanaugh is bad on metadata. I mean maybe I will be proven wrong, but I think shooting down environmental regulations, protecting religious freedom, protecting school choice, ending eminent domain abuses, curbing union power are far more important issues.

If I were in the Senate, not only would I vote to confirm Kavanaugh, I would be quite pleased with it. Gary Johnson supported Kavanaugh. Mike Lee. Rand. It really was an easy vote. I would have been disappointed had Rand voted against Kavanaugh.

[angelatc]

Yeah, there is the false paradigm of emotions vs facts, which is very commonly used in certain circles (I think we know which ones). Ones which are very hysterical I may add.

Hysterical nonsense.

Strategical for what? If you care about liberty, you should be making your strategic plays so that you can advance liberty in crucial moments. This may be one of the most crucial moments in the decade and Rand sold out.

I'm gonna assume this is a sock puppet.

[Swordsmyth]

Strategical for what? If you care about liberty, you should be making your strategic plays so that you can advance liberty in crucial moments. This may be one of the most crucial moments in the decade and Rand sold out.
His other options would have accomplished nothing and might have made things worse while endangering his ability to get cooperation from Trump and other Republicans.