Are Libertarians the New Neocons?

[Brian4Liberty]

Are Libertarians the New Neocons? (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2019/july/20/are-libertarians-the-new-neocons/)
written by daniel mcadams - saturday july 20, 2019


There is a disturbing trend in some libertarian circles and among some libertarian organizations to be increasingly enamored with foreign interventionism and US government backed regime change overseas. For those focused on foreign affairs, this is particularly troubling as it is abandoning a key tenet of libertarianism: non-interventionism.

Not "your government 6,000 miles away must be changed... but I don't support the US military doing it." That is not non-interventionism.

Non-interventionism is accepting that others may wish to live in a way you may not approve of.

Non-interventionism in your neighbor's affairs - whether he enjoys reading the Bible or lighting up a marijuana cigarette (or maybe both) - is really the sine qua non of the libertarian mindset: "aint nobody's business if you do." You do not aggress against your neighbor just because you disagree with his life choices that do not infringe on your person or property and you extrapolate that dynamic to where you demand that to the highest extent possible your local, state, and federal governments treat you as you would treat your neighbor.

The idea that this critical impulse somehow becomes null and void when it comes to international affairs is truly bizarre. In fact many self-described libertarians full-throatedly cheer when people are in the streets thousands of miles away trying to overthrow their governments. Somehow from this far distant vantage point they are just convinced that the mythical "free state" is about to break out somewhere.

And when someone points out that the semi-hidden hand behind these uprisings is the US government, which seeks to create overseas governments of subservient elites to prop up the (anti-libertarian) US empire, they accuse that person of being an extremist or a conspiracy theorist...or they get really lazy and stupid and just claim you are a "supporter" of the dictator of the day.

So, many US libertarians (who knew next to nothing about Venezuela) demanded our support for that great "libertarian" liberator of Venezuela, Juan Guaido, who turned out to be just another crook with zero support from Venezuelans (but a lot of support from the CIA!).

They ignored the murky ties of Guaido and his compadres to the US government and its nearly 20 year effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

In fact even Washington DC's flagship "libertarian" think tank, the Koch-funded CATO Institute, is hosting "regime change" conferences aimed at the overthrow of the Venezuelan government. Just this week, for example, they hosted a "What's Next for Venezuela?" conference where, sadly, the conclusion was not that we end sanctions and engage the country with trade and friendship - the libertarian approach - but rather it was the authoritarian approach that we must change the Venezuelan government.

As openly advertised, the aim of the CATO conference was to "discuss international efforts that can be made to put pressure on Maduro’s regime."

Let's get real: "pressure" = pain for civilians.

In other words, "libertarian" CATO is looking for ways to promote the same regime change that is demanded by the likes of Marco Rubio, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and the rest of the neocons. Funny how that works.

The policy? Squeeze the population, and if a few tens of thousands die because of US sanctions, well, in Madeleine Albright's words, it's "worth it" to get regime change.

Among CATO's speakers were those funded by the US government through its regime change cut-out entities like National Endowment for Democracy and USAID. CATO is giving a libertarian fig-leaf to a thoroughly neoconservative foreign policy.

That Koch's "libertarian" flagship organization is hosting regime-change conferences on Venezuela while Koch himself is being granted sainthood for funding an anti regime change think tank speaks volumes.

"Libertarian" malpractice in the area of foreign affairs unfortunately does not end there. All non-interventionists with any understanding of the Middle East will cringe - and worse - at an absurd recent article published by the once-libertarian Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). Provocatively titled, "Iran Wants a War; America Should Not Oblige Them," the author writes of "a dangerous upsurge in Iranian aggression, designed specifically to elicit a military response from the United States" without once mentioning the precipitating factor: US withdrawal from the JCPOA and a US policy of "maximum pressure" which is in practice an economic blockade - itself a unilateral act of war against Iran!

Translation: I punch you in the face and if you dare punch back you are the guilty party.

The author of this steaming pile of interventionist feces completely ignores the antecedent to recent Iranian actions: US aggression toward Iran - reimposing economic sanctions, demanding that others not trade with Iran so as to suffocate its citizens in the hopes that in their desperation they overthrow their government.

Instead, the Iranians just woke up one morning and decided to draw the United States into war!

In fact, in the author's telling, it's actually Washington that is the victim of those pesky Ayatollas: "Indeed, the Ayatollah is running a risky gambit, and that’s exactly why America must resist the temptation to respond in kind."

No, Bolton and Bibi have done nothing! It's the Iranians who out of the blue "desperately want to goad the United States into a fight, which is one reason too many not to oblige them."

This is a loaded gun dressed up as an olive branch.

The only thing that gives one hope is the near 100 percent condemnation of the piece in the comment section...

Here's the bottom line: the murderous, parasitical machine of interventionism is setting its sights on libertarianism as its next host. Neocons demand that you don't call them neocons because everyone understands that is poison.

There are plenty of dubious characters from abroad, flush with USAID money, claiming to be libertarian and seeking our support for their struggles thousands of miles away. Stick with the principles. If you really want to help country X, work to end US government sanctions against that country and to fully engage. Then they may eventually want to emulate us. If you sign on to a US-backed regime change that inevitably leaves the population worse off than the status quo ante (as it always does) and we continue to be hated as the arrogant empire that we've become, don't pretend it's someone else's fault.

Hate socialism? Sign up to oppose military Keynesianism here at home.

Work to end the US empire.

Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
...
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2019/july/20/are-libertarians-the-new-neocons/

[enhanced_deficit]

Nope :)


A few neocons falsely may have claimed to be Libertarians ( Bill O'Really, Tucker Carlson etc).

That said, neocon/globalist/foreign firster lobbies have been actively trying to recruit politicians from all sides including Libertarians but with exception of a few gullible, simple minded folks here and there, they are shunned.
Notorious Neocoservative and social liberal Democrat Sheldon Adelson funded GOP-Neocon-Lite wing lately is trying to do same to legitimize their globalist interventionist agenda/Iran war push for cause of parasitic foreign-first lobbies but they are bound to fail. Bold leadership by likes of rookie Amash so far, others are also starting to see things through to stop hijacking of GOP by globalist neocons.

NEXODUS: Neoconservatives from both parties joining GOP-Adelson (MAGA) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?532342-NEXODUS-Neoconservatives-from-both-parties-joining-GOP-Adelson-(MAGA)&)

#1 GOP Cash Bundler, Sheldon Adelson, Calls For US to Bomb Iran w/Nuclear Weapons (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431541-1-GOP-Cash-Bundler-Sheldon-Adelson-Calls-For-US-to-Bomb-Iran-w-Nuclear-Weapons&)

[kahless]

Nope :)


A few neocons falsely may have claimed to be Libertarians ( Bill O'Rielly, Tucker Carlson etc).

That said, neocon/globalist/foreign firster lobbies have been actively trying to recruit policians from all sides including Libertarians but with exception of a few gullible, simple menided folks here and there, they are shunned.
Neocosnervtive Sheldon Adelson funded GOP-Neocon-Lite wing lately is trying to do same to legitimize their globalist interventionist agenda for cause of parasitic foreign-first lobbies but they are bound to fail. Bold leadership by likes of rookie Amash, others are also starting to see things through.

Tucker is not a Neocon, more like a Paleocon as is Trump. The Koch's and CATO are not Libertarian. Libertarians are simply a useful tool for them. CATO is a Libertarian scam run by Neocons.

[Anti Federalist]

STATE-O

[enhanced_deficit]

Tucker is not a Neocon, more like a Paleocon as is Trump. The Koch's and CATO are not Libertarian. Libertarians are simply a useful tool for them. CATO is a Libertarian scam run by Neocons.

Tucker is better on many things especially looking at his recent rehtoric. Maybe I was bit prejudiced on this having observed his worship of Bush-Cheney at CNN during early years of Iraq war.

[PAF]

Vested interest in the MIC who create the very problems, lobby and win federal contracts to “fix” the problems.

Some on this very board openly admit to not being libertarian, calling some of us names such as Lefty, Commie, for promoting liberty, freedom and fiscal responsibility, as well as calling Ron Paul out for not knowing what he’s talking about... those be your social-fascists.

[kahless]

Vested interest in the MIC who create the very problems, lobby and win federal contracts to “fix” the problems.

Some on this very board openly admit to not being libertarian, calling some of us names such as Lefty, Commie, for promoting liberty, freedom and fiscal responsibility, as well as calling Ron Paul out for not knowing what he’s talking about... those be your social-fascists.

Promoting open borders assures us a non-libertarian future. If that is what you are promoting here then it is not surprising if someone is calling you out for it.

Perhaps the confusion over Ron comes from his rhetoric in recent years sounds like to some people to be contradictory to his earlier campaign platforms. I noticed that with you when I posted his two campaign platforms on immigration showing his policy is not exactly what you posted. You are to the left of Ron on immigration and much further to the left on that respect than most people in this forum.

[PAF]

Promoting open borders assures us a non-libertarian future. If that is what you are promoting here then it is not surprising if someone is calling you out for it.

Perhaps the confusion over Ron comes from his rhetoric in recent years sounds like to some people to be contradictory to his earlier campaign platforms. I noticed that with you when I posted his two campaign platforms on immigration showing his policy is not exactly what you posted. You are to the left of Ron on immigration and much further to the left on that respect than most people in this forum.


Twisting my words yet again. Amazing how some of you have that down to a rock-solid science. Because you have absolutely no principles whatsoever.


6715

[acptulsa]

Nope :)


A few neocons falsely may have claimed to be Libertarians...

A few?

If you have trashed your own reputation and your opponents have a good reputation, the solution is simple. Just change your name to their name.

Well, it's easy if the entire mainstream media are your lap dogs.

The only question this raises in my mind is, why is the Ron Paul Institute lending FEE and CATO credibility they don't deserve by calling them libertarian?

[enhanced_deficit]

A few?

If you have trashed your own reputation and your opponents have a good reputation, the solution is simple. Just change your name to their name.

Well, it's easy if the entire mainstream media are your lap dogs.
...

Valid point, I was being extremely conservative when I said 'a few' :)

[kahless]

Twisting my words yet again. Amazing how some of you have that down to a rock-solid science. Because you have absolutely no principles whatsoever.

You are overreacting and I am not trying to twist your words. You are in every thread defending open borders and name calling anyone that opposes it.

Why do you keep playing this game with everyone in the forum where you deny the beliefs that you posted? You want to believe in open borders, that is fine but then you try to deny it in the next set of posts makes it look like you are just trolling us here.

Your belief in open borders disregards the fact that it is counter productive to developing a libertarian future society with the US. It has been proven time and time again that it grows government.

You even went as far as to pop-in the thread to defend AOC who refers to anyone who is against open borders is Nazi's and then you trashed everyone that did not agree with you.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?537010-AOC%92s-latest-Only-Nazis-oppose-open-borders&p=6831531&viewfull=1#post6831531

[Sammy]

Tucker is better on many things especially looking at his recent rehtoric. Maybe I was bit prejudiced on this having observed his worship of Bush-Cheney at CNN during early years of Iraq war.

Tucker is a Non Interventionist since 2004. He refused to for Bush in 2004 because of the iraq war.
Did Bill O'reilly ever claim the he is a Libertarian? He is a Neocon.

[Swordsmyth]

If the people of a country are trying to overthrow a tyrannical government we are not required to support the tyrannical government or not cheer for the freedom fighters by "non-interventionism".

[Anti Globalist]

Well I'm a libertarian and I'm not a neocon by any stretch of the imagination.

[devil21]

You tellin' me that McAdams doesn't know that the LP Chair is a CIA plant and should be ignored? Come on Danny, wise up son.

[Brian4Liberty]

Vested interest in the MIC who create the very problems, lobby and win federal contracts to “fix” the problems.

Some on this very board openly admit to not being libertarian, calling some of us names such as Lefty, Commie, for promoting liberty, freedom and fiscal responsibility, as well as calling Ron Paul out for not knowing what he’s talking about... those be your social-fascists.

While neoconservative and MIC interests often have extreme overlap, they are not the same thing. Anyone who promotes war can be suspected of being MIC swamp crony war profiteers, but it is not always the case. There are political zealots (such as neocons or teocons) that promote war without profiting from war. They are all over the internet.

[Brian4Liberty]

You tellin' me that McAdams doesn't know that the LP Chair is a CIA plant ...

I don’t know if that hypotheses has been confirmed, but he does fit the criteria of what McAdams is talking about.

[r3volution 3.0]

On the one hand, there are libertarians. On the other, there are people who may self-ascribe as libertarians, or may be called libertarians by the media, or may have supported libertarian candidates, but who are actually conservatives sympathetic to small-ish government. These two groups have gotten along pretty well in recent years, but the latent ideological differences are now reemerging. This is most obvious in relation to the culture wars (libertarians don't care, conservatives do) and immigration (libertarians are cosmopolitans, conservatives are nationalists). On foreign policy, libertarians and small government conservatives are still on the same page most of the time (e.g. we all oppose most everything the US government does overseas), but, to the OP's point, there is a difference in principle; conservatives value national sovereignty above individual rights, libertarians do not. So, no, libertarians aren't the "new neocons." Libertarians are libertarians; those making these accusations aren't.

[Brian4Liberty]

On the one hand, there are libertarians. On the other, there are people who may self-ascribe as libertarians, or may be called libertarians by the media, or may have supported libertarian candidates, but who are actually conservatives sympathetic to small-ish government. These two groups have gotten along pretty well in recent years, but the latent ideological differences are now reemerging. This is most obvious in relation to the culture wars (libertarians don't care, conservatives do) and immigration (libertarians are cosmopolitans, conservatives are nationalists). On foreign policy, libertarians and small government conservatives are still on the same page most of the time (e.g. we all oppose most everything the US government does overseas), but, to the OP's point, there is a difference in principle; conservatives value national sovereignty above individual rights, libertarians do not. So, no, libertarians aren't the "new neocons." Libertarians are libertarians; those making these accusations aren't.

Ah, so you are a true libertarian and Daniel McAdams is not?

You support foreign interventionism and regime change. That is what the late, great Justin Raimondo called “libertarian Trotskyism”.

You are not a libertarian, and have previously described yourself as some kind of monarchist. You are also a globalist, which is consistent with just about any ideology that wants to control the world, including neoconservatism.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ah, so you are a true libertarian

Correct


and Daniel McAdams is not?

Don't know/care


You support foreign interventionism and regime change.

If/when it advances liberty, yes, as a libertarian not only can but must.


That is what the late, great Justin Raimondo called “libertarian Trotskyism”.

Noted


You are not a libertarian and have previously described yourself as some kind of monarchist.

There's no contradiction between monarchism and libertarianism.


You are also a globalist, which is consistent with just about any ideology that wants to control the world, including neoconservatism.

Liking the Simpsons is consistent with being a NAZI.

Eating pasta is consistent with being Osama bin Laden.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
If/when it advances liberty, yes, as a libertarian not only can but must.


Wrong. There is nothing libertarian about foreign interventionism and regime change.


There's no contradiction between monarchism and libertarianism.

As long as you are the benevolent Monarch, right? Sorry wrong again.


Liking the Simpsons is consistent with being a NAZI.

Eating pasta is consistent with being Osama bin Laden.

All neoconservatives are globalists. Not all globalists are neoconservative.

Weren't you inferring in another thread about mass shooters that being a nationalist is consistent with being a mass shooter?

[r3volution 3.0]

Wrong. There is nothing libertarian about foreign interventionism and regime change.

As long as you are the benevolent Monarch, right? Sorry wrong again.

Whatever you say


All neoconservatives are globalists. Not all globalists are neoconservative.

Weren't you inferring in another thread about mass shooters that being a nationalist is consistent with being a mass shooter?

No, I was saying that several of the recent mass shooters in fact were nationalists.

[showpan]

Well I'm not sure if I am a libertarian even though I passionately relate to many issues backed by Libertarians. The last time I voted was for Ron Paul and before that was Ross Perot...lol....I do not support Rand since he votes for sanctions and other issues I strongly oppose. I now refuse to participate in a corrupt process and the libertarian party has not ran a legitimate candidate since Dr. Paul. I took the name Democratic Republican for a FB group when the fake teaparty's surfaced so that no one else could hijack Thomas Jefferson's party and use it for their own twisted agenda on social media. I don't use it much since I do not wish to make it to the top of some FBI list although I do post here and there ...lol...I am definitely anti NWO. The neocons have a history of infiltrating a party. They did it to the Republicans first and then the democrats and now they are one party with 2 faces. Good cop-bad cop. It's obvious that they will claim the Libertarian party too. They already have the largest ones, now it's time to work down the list. The state of this countries current political parties are very sad indeed. As I talk to more of our youth, (early to mid 20's) I find that many of them are becoming more aware. The 30 something yr olds and above are mostly brainwashed Trumpsters...lol...even though he filled the swamp with the worst of the worse neocons :(

[devil21]

Well I'm not sure if I am a libertarian even though I passionately relate to many issues backed by Libertarians. The last time I voted was for Ron Paul and before that was Ross Perot...lol....I do not support Rand since he votes for sanctions and other issues I strongly oppose. I now refuse to participate in a corrupt process and the libertarian party has not ran a legitimate candidate since Dr. Paul. I took the name Democratic Republican for a FB group when the fake teaparty's surfaced so that no one else could hijack Thomas Jefferson's party and use it for their own twisted agenda on social media. I don't use it much since I do not wish to make it to the top of some FBI list although I do post here and there ...lol...I am definitely anti NWO. The neocons have a history of infiltrating a party. They did it to the Republicans first and then the democrats and now they are one party with 2 faces. Good cop-bad cop. It's obvious that they will claim the Libertarian party too. They already have the largest ones, now it's time to work down the list. The state of this countries current political parties are very sad indeed. As I talk to more of our youth, (early to mid 20's) I find that many of them are becoming more aware. The 30 something yr olds and above are mostly brainwashed Trumpsters...lol...even though he filled the swamp with the worst of the worse neocons :(

It is interesting how, in my experience at least, that the really young ones (18yo range) seem to sense that something is very wrong these days and are hungry to learn. Perhaps the dearth of education now being received in public schools has left their minds very hungry for knowledge. Some kind of knowledge to fill the void that was left by years of training-for-the-tests-public-schooling. Those that go on to colleges are receiving the socialist indoctrination "knowledge" while those that do not, seek it out from other sources. This is why it's important for liberty minded older people to actively seek out young ones to talk to instead of letting that void be filled by anti-liberty sources.

[showpan]

Exactly. I am able to open the eyes of many younger kids these days. They know something is terribly wrong so I give them the resources and knowledge to paths that lead them to the truth. Once I get them to bite, they are eager to awaken themselves and question everything. You can lead a horse to water.

[angelatc]

Bump

A mere 6 months later and McAdams looks like a genius.

[Warlord]

While neoconservative and MIC interests often have extreme overlap, they are not the same thing. Anyone who promotes war can be suspected of being MIC swamp crony war profiteers, but it is not always the case. There are political zealots (such as neocons or teocons) that promote war without profiting from war. They are all over the internet.

FreeRepubilc.com is bad. I've got 2 strikes for posting Ron/Rand articles in the last week. Most of them are thirsty for war and their admins squelch any opposition.

[Todd]

The two are mutually exclusive. We need to be students of language and not allow people to define terms differently. By definition you cannot be a libertarian if you are espousing Neoconservatism.

I am speaking from a place of experience on this since I am a recovering Neocon.

[Warlord]

The two are mutually exclusive. We need to be students of language and not allow people to define terms differently. By definition you cannot be a libertarian if you are espousing Neoconservatism.

I am speaking from a place of experience on this since I am a recovering Neocon.

Non-interventionism is the better term Todd. That basically covers 'mind your own business', or quote General Washington: 'no foreign entanglements' :)

[Sammy]

Red Headed Libertarian is a Neocon who claims to be a Libertarian for example!

[Brian4Liberty]

FreeRepubilc.com is bad. I've got 2 strikes for posting Ron/Rand articles in the last week. Most of them are thirsty for war and their admins squelch any opposition.

Soleimani was bad, mkay? Any other argument or consideration is anti-American and anti-libertarian, mkay?

[Warlord]

Soleimani was bad, mkay? Any other argument or consideration is anti-American and anti-libertarian, mkay?

I think that's the view taken by most in the GOP. I think FreeRepublic reflects the party generally. Lots of whoopping for war, death and destruction. We're screwed. I don't think Rand can ever get the nomination in a party like that.

[Swordsmyth]

Soleimani was bad, mkay? Any other argument or consideration is anti-American and anti-libertarian, mkay?


I think that's the view taken by most in the GOP. I think FreeRepublic reflects the party generally. Lots of whoopping for war, death and destruction. We're screwed. I don't think Rand can ever get the nomination in a party like that.
I see lots of people saying we should leave and come home on FreeRepublic, they just believe that the killing of Solly was correct.

[Warlord]

I see lots of people saying we should leave and come home on FreeRepublic, they just believe that the killing of Solly was correct.

They ban you if you post Ron/Rand articles. And you get lots of abuse.

[jmdrake]

I see lots of people saying we should leave and come home on FreeRepublic, they just believe that the killing of Solly was correct.


They ban you if you post Ron/Rand articles. And you get lots of abuse.

Ron Paul has rightly questioned the killing of General Soleimani.

[Swordsmyth]

Ron Paul has rightly questioned the killing of General Soleimani.
I have RIGHTLY answered the questions about it.

[jmdrake]

Nope :)


A few neocons falsely may have claimed to be Libertarians ( Bill O'Really, Tucker Carlson etc).

That said, neocon/globalist/foreign firster lobbies have been actively trying to recruit politicians from all sides including Libertarians but with exception of a few gullible, simple minded folks here and there, they are shunned.
Notorious Neocoservative and social liberal Democrat Sheldon Adelson funded GOP-Neocon-Lite wing lately is trying to do same to legitimize their globalist interventionist agenda/Iran war push for cause of parasitic foreign-first lobbies but they are bound to fail. Bold leadership by likes of rookie Amash so far, others are also starting to see things through to stop hijacking of GOP by globalist neocons.

NEXODUS: Neoconservatives from both parties joining GOP-Adelson (MAGA) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?532342-NEXODUS-Neoconservatives-from-both-parties-joining-GOP-Adelson-(MAGA)&)

#1 GOP Cash Bundler, Sheldon Adelson, Calls For US to Bomb Iran w/Nuclear Weapons (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431541-1-GOP-Cash-Bundler-Sheldon-Adelson-Calls-For-US-to-Bomb-Iran-w-Nuclear-Weapons&)


Tucker is not a Neocon, more like a Paleocon as is Trump. The Koch's and CATO are not Libertarian. Libertarians are simply a useful tool for them. CATO is a Libertarian scam run by Neocons.

Tucker has been good against the push for war with Iran. So has CATO. Trump, on the other hand, has shown his neocon-light colors.

https://www.cato.org/research/foreign-policy-national-security


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BjMAeJo1wY

[jmdrake]

I have RIGHTLY answered the questions about it.

:rolleyes: BS.

[Aratus]

Bump

A mere 6 months later and McAdams looks like a genius.

we just had another debate. i'm about to do up a poll with a focus on Bill Weld.

[Todd]

FreeRepubilc.com is bad. I've got 2 strikes for posting Ron/Rand articles in the last week. Most of them are thirsty for war and their admins squelch any opposition.

Lol. I was banned after 4 posts in 2008 for daring argue with them about Ron Paul

[nobody's_hero]

I think that's the view taken by most in the GOP. I think FreeRepublic reflects the party generally. Lots of whoopping for war, death and destruction. We're screwed. I don't think Rand can ever get the nomination in a party like that.

What other party can he get the nomination in? With all due respect, if you know, stop holding out on us.

Rand has transformed minds within the party. Yes, it is true, that public opinion can be fragile, and people tend to resort to following the leader, regardless of party D, R, or even L if it ever managed to get someone into a leadership position. I think Free Republic is a very LOUD portion of the party but like with liberals loudest does NOT mean largest.

[Warlord]

What other party can he get the nomination in? With all due respect, if you know, stop holding out on us.

Rand has transformed minds within the party. Yes, it is true, that public opinion can be fragile, and people tend to resort to following the leader, regardless of party D, R, or even L if it ever managed to get someone into a leadership position. I think Free Republic is a very LOUD portion of the party but like with liberals loudest does NOT mean largest.

I think we should give up on Presidential politics and focus on getting Republican senators through the primary system and then in the election. Imagine 10 Rand Paul's in the US Senate. They could as a team vote down every piece of unconstitutional sh*t legislation and massive spending bills. They will have to change their ways. Also, its cheaper/easier to win a senate race than a damn presidential election...