Justin Amash is an exercise in vanity (he is the anti-Ron Paul)

[Matt Collins]

Spot on article by Dan McCarthy as to why Justin Amash is the "anti-Ron Paul"


https://spectator.us/justin-amash-study-vanity/

[enhanced_deficit]

By this purist criterion, you could then argue that even Rand is 'anti-RP' on things like supporting neocons funded politicians and supporting/enabling one of the biggest socialist debt spending regimes in US history.

JA is not perfect but better than many in swamp infested political machinery that encompasses bi-partisan drama.

[devil21]

Author is a Trumpkin and the foundation he works for is Swamp, through and through, and sorta looks like a CIA front. Not much "liberty" to be found on their website but sure is a lot of hobnobbing with the usual Beltway suspects. As such, his opinion gets zero regard from me but thanks for posting I guess.


https://tfas.org/event/london-alumni-dinner/
I know when I think of liberty, I think of hobnobbing with London elites and following "The Footsteps of Churchill" :rolleyes:

[dannno]

Wow, ya, that article made a lot of really great points.

[devil21]

Wow, ya, that article made a lot of really great points.

Like?

[KEEF]

But in his remarks to YAL, Amash made a point of distancing himself from Ron Paul and his branch of the libertarian tradition.

Yeah, and him trying to distance himself from Ron Paul way back in 2010 is why I had dinner with both of them at Dr.Paul’s brother’s house for Carol’s birthday party in 2012.

Amash is a great guy, and he has my full support.

[dean.engelhardt]

This "logic" is the reason we will have an old delusional muttering idiot holding the most powerful position in the world. You got to pick either Donnie Red or Joe Diddle, because, you know, if we vote for a candidate that is smarter that a 10 year old window licker, it is a wasted vote.

[dannno]

This "logic" is the reason we will have an old delusional muttering idiot holding the most powerful position in the world. You got to pick either Donnie Red or Joe Diddle, because, you know, if we vote for a candidate that is smarter that a 10 year old window licker, it is a wasted vote.

If you think Trump is an old delusional muttering idiot, then by all means vote for Amash.

I'll put my vote toward what gains me the most amount of freedom. In 2008, that meant Ron Paul. In 2012 that meant Ron Paul. In 2016, I went begrudgingly went with Gary Johnson, who had a Vice President that completely sabotaged his campaign by telling Gary Johnson supporters to vote for Hillary.

Amash is trapped and has no way out. He took the deep state/neocons lying BS side on Russia and Ukraine and created a fanbase of people who completely despise his ideology. He is running against a President who is actually giving us significantly more freedom and prosperity than the other side - and NO, McCain and Romney would not have given us any more freedom or prosperity than Obama.. This is not about red and blue teams. This is about seeing through the fake news BS and taking down the satanic cabal that owns our politicians, media and educational institutions.

[Krugminator2]

In this, as in so many things, he’s the opposite of Ron Paul. Dr Paul also left the Republican party to run for the Libertarian nomination, back in 1988. He did not do it in a snit, however, or in a self-dramatizing way.

The whole article is ridiculous. Actually Ron did leave in a snit. The entire history he gave of Ron Paul is especially laughable. Ron Paul lost his Senate Primary race by 67 percentage points to Phil Gramm so he was out of politics just like Amash would be if he ran for his House seat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas The Libertarian Party was a way for both to stay relevant.

The reasons Ron gave for becoming a Libertarian were the exact same as Amash's. Amash because of Trump and Ron because of Reagan, the most libertarian/conservative president since Coolidge.

McCarthy's article complains that Amash supported impeachment which was bad or something because conservatives and allies were on the other side. So he says Amash is preening and self-aggrandizing. Ron in denouncing Reagan was on the opposite side of people like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman who count Reagan as a hero. Here are two reasons Ron gave for leaving the Republican Party (which are bonkers)

-Says Reagan raised taxes and collected more revenue because of tax hikes. (Factually wrong. Cut taxes dramatically and raised revenue because of economic growth)

-Complained about the wild inflation occurring under Reagan. (Reagan was the best president ever in the history of the country at tackling inflation. Was 11% when he took office and 4% when he left.) https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-ron-pauls-reagan-revisionism


Let's not act like Ron is somehow better than Amash on this in any way.

[dannno]

The reasons Ron gave for becoming a Libertarian were the exact same as Amash's. Amash because of Trump and Ron because of Reagan, the most libertarian/conservative president since Coolidge.

Tell me more about Reagan's election campaign in '88

I know he expressed some disappointment in Reagan, but he didn't freaking run against him.. he ran against George Bush..

[trey4sports]

The whole article is ridiculous. Actually Ron did leave in a snit. The entire history he gave of Ron Paul is especially laughable. Ron Paul lost his Senate Primary race by 67 percentage points to Phil Gramm so he was out of politics just like Amash would be if he ran for his House seat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas The Libertarian Party was a way for both to stay relevant.

The reasons Ron gave for becoming a Libertarian were the exact same as Amash's. Amash because of Trump and Ron because of Reagan, the most libertarian/conservative president since Coolidge.

McCarthy's article complains that Amash supported impeachment which was bad or something because conservatives and allies were on the other side. So he says Amash is preening and self-aggrandizing. Ron in denouncing Reagan was on the opposite side of people like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman who count Reagan as a hero. Here are two reasons Ron gave for leaving the Republican Party (which are bonkers)

-Says Reagan raised taxes and collected more revenue because of tax hikes. (Factually wrong. Cut taxes dramatically and raised revenue because of economic growth)

-Complained about the wild inflation occurring under Reagan. (Reagan was the best president ever in the history of the country at tackling inflation. Was 11% when he took office and 4% when he left.) https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-ron-pauls-reagan-revisionism


Let's not act like Ron is somehow better than Amash on this in any way.

What? U.S. Federal Debt under Reagan went from 31% of GDP in 1980 to 49% of GDP in 1988! https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

Reagan was the most overrated president of the last 50 years.

[Krugminator2]

Tell me more about Reagan's election campaign in '88

I know he expressed some disappointment in Reagan, but he didn't freaking run against him.. he ran against George Bush..

Doesn't mention Bush once in his letter explaining why he is running for the LP.

The whole letter is about Reagan. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-ron-pauls-reagan-revisionism

[tebowlives]

The whole article is ridiculous. Actually Ron did leave in a snit. The entire history he gave of Ron Paul is especially laughable. Ron Paul lost his Senate Primary race by 67 percentage points to Phil Gramm so he was out of politics just like Amash would be if he ran for his House seat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas The Libertarian Party was a way for both to stay relevant.

The reasons Ron gave for becoming a Libertarian were the exact same as Amash's. Amash because of Trump and Ron because of Reagan, the most libertarian/conservative president since Coolidge.

McCarthy's article complains that Amash supported impeachment which was bad or something because conservatives and allies were on the other side. So he says Amash is preening and self-aggrandizing. Ron in denouncing Reagan was on the opposite side of people like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman who count Reagan as a hero. Here are two reasons Ron gave for leaving the Republican Party (which are bonkers)

-Says Reagan raised taxes and collected more revenue because of tax hikes. (Factually wrong. Cut taxes dramatically and raised revenue because of economic growth)

-Complained about the wild inflation occurring under Reagan. (Reagan was the best president ever in the history of the country at tackling inflation. Was 11% when he took office and 4% when he left.) https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-ron-pauls-reagan-revisionism


Let's not act like Ron is somehow better than Amash on this in any way.

You disagree with this from Mises site?

"that federal tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%"

Did the economic growth hit 49% too?

"Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection."

"In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. "

Wouldn't Ron be talking about the inflation tax, money supply which did go up by quit a bit? up by ~70%
As well as tying that in with large increases in spending and debt?

[Krugminator2]

What? U.S. Federal Debt under Reagan went from 31% of GDP in 1980 to 49% of GDP in 1988! https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

Reagan was the most overrated president of the last 50 years.

Deficits don't matter and balanced budgets have nothing to do with libertarianism as St. Milton explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmmO07ckAU But it is worth noting spending went down dramatically as a share of GDP his last five years.

His accomplishments:

Took a major political hit that no other president would have taken to end out of control inflation, his greatest accomplishment.

Cut taxes dramatically and basically froze regulation

Ended the Cold War without firing a shot and negotiated a nuclear disarmament that is still taking place today.

Started the dramatic reduction in union power starting with firing the air traffic controllers.

[eleganz]

Clear difference.

Ron was drafted to run for president. Justin is doing it because he hates Trump.

[Krugminator2]

You disagree with this from Mises site?

No reasonable person on the planet across the political spectrum thinks Reagan raised taxes overall in real terms



"that federal tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%"

Did the economic growth hit 49% too?



National income grew 71% from 1980 to 1986. Tax receipts only went up 49%.

Nominal GDP by year https://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
9.6
9.9
3.7
11.52
9.33
7.1
4.8

[trey4sports]

Deficits don't matter and balanced budgets have nothing to do with libertarianism as St. Milton explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmmO07ckAU But it is worth noting spending went down dramatically as a share of GDP his last five years.

His accomplishments:

Took a major political hit that no other president would have taken to end out of control inflation, his greatest accomplishment.

Cut taxes dramatically and basically froze regulation

Ended the Cold War without firing a shot and negotiated a nuclear disarmament that is still taking place today.

Started the dramatic reduction in union power starting with firing the air traffic controllers.

1. I don't ascribe to voodoo economics - Deficits do matter. Even Milton Friedman asserted that Public debt is a tax is realized in the form of either inflation now or an invisible tax realized at some future point.

2. Paul Volcker began raising the Fed Funds rate before Reagan even took office - Not sure how this can be credited to Reagan.

3. He did dramatically cut personal income taxes - I'll applaud that.

4. Unfamiliar with the reduction in the union power during the Reagan term but ill take your word on that.

[enhanced_deficit]

Author is a Trumpkin and the foundation he works for is Swamp...

Then pro-GOPA wing bias could ve at work too.




Clear difference.

Ron was drafted to run for president. Justin is doing it because he hates Trump.


Ron is an icon. Ever since he rose on national stage with his pro liberty/anti global interventionism ideas during 2007-08 Prsidential debates (when he was called worse names by deep neocons/globalists/ziocons etc and their media surrogates than any libertarians that followed him), can't think of a time when he was anything less than stellar in articulating his ideas. He was also incredibly consistent compared to new crop of libertarians (Rand, Massie, Justin and others). Perhaps he had advanatge of wisdom of age also and was politically very mature also.

As for "hate", that seems like too strong a word to describe such political rivalries. Youngsters in any political thought group tend to be more fiesty in general.

https://i.redd.it/x6751h0cd2e41.jpg

[trey4sports]

Then pro-GOPA wing bias could ve at work too.






Ron is an icon. Ever since he rose on national stage with his pro liberty/anti global interventionism ideas during 2007-08 Prsidential debates (when he was called worse names by deep neocons/globalists/ziocons etc and their media surrogates than any libertarians that followed him), can't think of a time when he was anything less than stellar in articulating his ideas. He was also incredibly consistent compared to new crop of libertarians (Rand, Massie, Justin and others). Perhaps he had advanatge of wisdom of age also and was politically very mature also.

As for "hate", that seems like too strong a word to describe such political rivalries. Youngsters in any political thought group tend to be more fiesty in general.

https://i.redd.it/x6751h0cd2e41.jpg

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

[pcosmar]

If you think Trump is an old delusional muttering idiot,

No
I think he is the Spoiled Narcissistic son of a Slum Lord.
The Clown is a New York Democrat with enough money to BUY the Republican Ticket,,and was elected by Democrats That could not stand Hillary..

His Clownish Bluster has worked in Business.. but is unbecoming a Diplomat.

[brandon]

There is only one issue that matters in modern politics. Do you support the lockdown or not? Remarkably, Amash has said basically nothing about this. However, he did attack people supporting the 2nd amendment tonight on twitter.

It pains me to say but this guy ended up being a tool. Will not vote for him.

I hope McAfee wins the libertarian nomination. That guy speaks truth to power about the lockdowns every day.

[tebowlives]

No reasonable person on the planet across the political spectrum thinks Reagan raised taxes overall in real terms
Then explain this Mr Reasonable
" the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall."

"a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to IRAs."



National income grew 71% from 1980 to 1986. Tax receipts only went up 49%.

Nominal GDP by year https://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
9.6
9.9
3.7
11.52
9.33
7.1
4.8Measuring it that way, "Taxes fell from 18.9% of the GNP to 18.3%, or for a better gauge, taxes as percentage of net private product fell from 27.2% to 26.6%."
Percentage wise taxes were even, overall a huge absolute increase.

[tebowlives]

Deficits don't matter and balanced budgets have nothing to do with libertarianism as St. Milton explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmmO07ckAU But it is worth noting spending went down dramatically as a share of GDP his last five years.

His accomplishments:

Took a major political hit that no other president would have taken to end out of control inflation, his greatest accomplishment.

Cut taxes dramatically and basically froze regulation

Ended the Cold War without firing a shot and negotiated a nuclear disarmament that is still taking place today.

Started the dramatic reduction in union power starting with firing the air traffic controllers.He didn't cut taxes dramatically. He didn't cut them at all.
Carter started the deregulation. Reagan continued it.

Tripled the debt in 8 years. Previously it took 30.

More than doubled the budgets of Education and Energy, 2 departments he aid he'd get rid of

Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986.

The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase.

Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion.

Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

The portion of imports under restriction doubled

[tebowlives]

There is only one issue that matters in modern politics. Do you support the lockdown or not? Remarkably, Amash has said basically nothing about this. However, he did attack people supporting the 2nd amendment tonight on twitter.

It pains me to say but this guy ended up being a tool. Will not vote for him.

I hope McAfee wins the libertarian nomination. That guy speaks truth to power about the lockdowns every day.

The only one issue is the lockdown? That's what matters the most?
You made that up.

One of the most conservative members in congress. We can tell that by his vote and you wont support him???

You and others have lost your way. It's disgusting.

[tebowlives]

No
I think he is the Spoiled Narcissistic son of a Slum Lord.
The Clown is a New York Democrat with enough money to BUY the Republican Ticket,,and was elected by Democrats That could not stand Hillary..

His Clownish Bluster has worked in Business.. but is unbecoming a Diplomat.No no you are wrong. We like Trump and the way he spends money, raises the debt and keeps us in never ending war in the Middle East. Amash is just some poser who continually votes for small government. We hate that. That's sarcasm. Unfortunately for some here it isn't sarcasm, it's their new beliefs

[KEEF]

No no you are wrong. We like Trump and the way he spends money, raises the debt and keeps us in never ending war in the Middle East. Amash is just some poser who continually votes for small government. We hate that. That's sarcasm. Unfortunately for some here it isn't sarcasm, it's their new beliefs
^THIS^
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tebowlives again.

[Cap]

Yeah, and him trying to distance himself from Ron Paul way back in 2010 is why I had dinner with both of them at Dr.Paul’s brother’s house for Carol’s birthday party in 2012.

Amash is a great guy, and he has my full support.Justin is a personal friend of Ron's. The Collinz is just jealous because he is irrelevant in politics.

[Sammy]

Yeah, and him trying to distance himself from Ron Paul way back in 2010 is why I had dinner with both of them at Dr.Paul’s brother’s house for Carol’s birthday party in 2012.

Amash is a great guy, and he has my full support.

What did he say? This very important! You can send me a PM if you want!

[devil21]

What did he say? This very important! You can send me a PM if you want!
KEEF

https://i.imgur.com/uOfqsiD.png

[KEEF]

@KEEF (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=12587)

https://i.imgur.com/uOfqsiD.png
Oh I know!:up:

[trey4sports]

No no you are wrong. We like Trump and the way he spends money, raises the debt and keeps us in never ending war in the Middle East. Amash is just some poser who continually votes for small government. We hate that. That's sarcasm. Unfortunately for some here it isn't sarcasm, it's their new beliefs

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

[Brian4Liberty]

Spot on article by Dan McCarthy as to why Justin Amash is the "anti-Ron Paul"


https://spectator.us/justin-amash-study-vanity/

Well, there is one person on the right who is afraid that this will hurt Trump. Pretty sure the left has been far more vocal saying that Amash might help Trump and hurt Biden. Is it just the visceral hatred that the left has for libertarians, or is there something more? Do they really believe leftists would vote for Amash? Or is it just reminder to the left that they shouldn't even consider it? The leftist sheep get their talking points from The View, so that may be it.

[Sammy]

Well, there is one person on the right who is afraid that this will hurt Trump. Pretty sure the left has been far more vocal saying that Amash might help Trump and hurt Biden. Is it just the visceral hatred that the left has for libertarians, or is there something more? Do they really believe leftists would vote for Amash? Or is it just reminder to the left that they shouldn't even consider it? The leftist sheep get their talking points from The View, so that may be it.

You are right. Its more than ridiculous to think that a Left winger is going to vote for a Libertarian.
The Bernie Bros don't like Biden because he is not left wing enough for them.
Amash hates Trump so much that he wants Trump to lose. This is the only reason he is in the race.
If (God forbid) President Biden gets his Judges he is going to repeal the 2nd amendment!
Like I said If you live in a safe state its okay to vote for him. But not in a swing state!

[susano]

Spot on article by Dan McCarthy as to why Justin Amash is the "anti-Ron Paul"


https://spectator.us/justin-amash-study-vanity/

Scathing and spot on.

[trey4sports]

I am curious if Justin Amash could get a couple sitting "Never Trumpers" endorsement? Mitt Romney comes to mind.

Hell, maybe Romney will change his party affiliation too.

Mitt Romney (L) Utah

:tears:

[susano]

You are right. Its more than ridiculous to think that a Left winger is going to vote for a Libertarian.
The Bernie Bros don't like Biden because he is not left wing enough for them.
Amash hates Trump so much that he wants Trump to lose. This is the only reason he is in the race.
If (God forbid) President Biden gets his Judges he is going to repeal the 2nd amendment!
Like I said If you live in a safe state its okay to vote for him. But not in a swing state!

Never Trumpers who may have voted for Biden could go to Amash. Same for some Bernie supporters. It's not about any ideology but hating both Trump and Biden. A protest vote, iow.

[69360]

It's not like he is going to be president. Who cares. I'm fine with him being my protest voter against Trump and Biden.

[Matt Collins]

By this purist criterion, you could then argue that even Rand is 'anti-RP' on things like supporting neocons funded politicians and supporting/enabling one of the biggest socialist debt spending regimes in US history.
Actually I have railed against Rand when he pushes nonsense several times in the last few years.

[Matt Collins]

Author is a Trumpkin and the foundation he works for is Swamp, through and through, and sorta looks like a CIA front.
Actually Dan McCarthy has been a longstanding member of the liberty movement, worked for AmConMag, and is what would be described as a paleo-conservative (Pat Buchanan type).

[Matt Collins]

The Collinz is just jealous because he is irrelevant in politics.
Ha ha ha... not hardly. I haven't worked in full time politics in years, I changed careers on purpose. And if you think I'm "irrelevant" then come down to where I live and you'll see I just killed a massive tax hike in my home county.

[Matt Collins]

It's not like he is going to be president. Who cares. I'm fine with him being my protest voter against Trump and Biden.
And this is also a true statement. I don't think I can vote for the guy on principle, but as a protest vote, it is appealing.

[Matt Collins]

However, he did attack people supporting the 2nd amendment tonight on twitter.
Can you please provide links to this? I looked and did see it.

[devil21]

Actually Dan McCarthy has been a longstanding member of the liberty movement, worked for AmConMag, and is what would be described as a paleo-conservative (Pat Buchanan type).

I stand by my assessment. Browsing his recent write-ups found little to suggest he's anything other than another career Beltway swamper and his professional associations are dubious at best.

[eleganz]

Clear difference.

Ron was drafted to run for president. Justin is doing it because he hates Trump.

I should clarify my post by also mentioning that, to be fair, Justin did say in the past that our ideals should be represented during presidential campaigns. Does not change the fact that Justin's decisions are emotionally driven by Trump. Justin would be a lot more effective if he ran in GOP and in 2024, even if it was against Trump Jr., a message that is heard from a republican open mind is better than a non-existent message from the LP campaign.

[tebowlives]

Actually I have railed against Rand when he pushes nonsense several times in the last few years.
Yes you do love to bring attention to yourself by constantly throwing Liberty politicians under the bus. It's sleazy.

[tebowlives]

And this is also a true statement. I don't think I can vote for the guy on principle, but as a protest vote, it is appealing.
You can't vote for one of the best small government candidates in Congress on principle?????? Small government is our principle and not tabloid garbage.

[PAF]

You can't vote for one of the best small government candidates in Congress on principle?????? Small government is our principle and not tabloid garbage.

When I used to vote:

Vote the Record, Not the Rhetoric

[Matt Collins]

You can't vote for one of the best small government candidates in Congress on principle?????? Except that when he advocates UBI and massive welfare programs, he isn't really "small government" any more. I do agree he is better than most, but he has some serious missteps that are very concerning for someone who is supposed to be pro-liberty.

[Krugminator2]

Except that when he advocates UBI and massive welfare programs, he isn't really "small government" any more. I do agree he is better than most, but he has some serious missteps that are very concerning for someone who is supposed to be pro-liberty.

Cutting a check to people who were forced out of work by government is not a massive welfare program. It is similar to paying someone for taking land from eminent domain. It isn't optional. It is what the government should do in a libertarian society.

And even if he did support UBI, that is not incompatible with small government or libertarianism. It very may well shrink the welfare state and make government smaller.

Here is the reality. Justin Amash is a radical extremist. He is never getting elected to anything on a state level, let alone president. People like you (who I doubt is even a libertarian) bitch and moan about everything. One Justin Amash is worth 10 million of you complainers.

[Krugminator2]

I hope McAfee wins the libertarian nomination. That guy speaks truth to power about the lockdowns every day.


John McAfee should be in prison for life. He killed one person, probably two. And ran a massive stock fraud scam which was five bucks when I made this thread. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499627-Re-John-McAfee-MGT&highlight=mcafee Currently at 2.2 cents.

He is criminal. Libertarians don't initiate force, threaten and defraud people.

[familydog]

Its more than ridiculous to think that a Left winger is going to vote for a Libertarian.
The Bernie Bros don't like Biden because he is not left wing enough for them.

I dunno. Can left libertarians be considered left wingers? 'Cause that's all who will end up supporting him. Or, those old enough to be nostalgic for the liberty movement circa 2010. Amash appeals to no one outside of those two circles.

[Matt Collins]

Cutting a check to people who were forced out of work by government is not a massive welfare program. It is similar to paying someone for taking land from eminent domain. It isn't optional. It is what the government should do in a libertarian society.No, to use the cliche "2 wrongs don't make a right"

Just because the government screwed someone else over, doesn't mean I should be forced to suffer for someone else's mistakes. The government should never have "forced people out of work."



And even if he did support UBI, that is not incompatible with small government or libertarianism. It very may well shrink the welfare state and make government smaller.Then you obviously don't understand UBI. It's unconstitutional, it's bad economic policy, and it is philosophically unsound. It is the essence of socialism, redistribution of wealth.




Here is the reality. Justin Amash is a radical extremist. He is never getting elected to anything on a state levelUntrue. He used to be a member of the MI House.

[trey4sports]

No, to use the cliche "2 wrongs don't make a right"

Just because the government screwed someone else over, doesn't mean I should be forced to suffer for someone else's mistakes. The government should never have "forced people out of work."


Then you obviously don't understand UBI. It's unconstitutional, it's bad economic policy, and it is philosophically unsound. It is the essence of socialism, redistribution of wealth.



Untrue. He used to be a member of the MI House.

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

[Krugminator2]

No, to use the cliche "2 wrongs don't make a right"

Just because the government screwed someone else over, doesn't mean I should be forced to suffer for someone else's mistakes. The government should never have "forced people out of work."



Having people beg on Ron Paul Forums for money with 20% unemployment isn't going to be a very good strategy. It is your kind of thinking that libertarianism gets caricatured as and makes it easy for people to automatically dismiss it



Then you obviously don't understand UBI. It's unconstitutional, it's bad economic policy, and it is philosophically unsound. It is the essence of socialism, redistribution of wealth.



The only question is if it is better than the current system. If it is then it should be implemented. Haven't made up my mind on it.

As far as it being bad economic policy, the two greatest economists in history (Friedman and Hayek) as well as Charles Murray supported it so it can't just be dismissed as bad economic policy.




Untrue. He used to be a member of the MI House.

The Michigan House is local like the US House. It isn't a statewide election.

[Matt Collins]

Author is a Trumpkin and the foundation he works for is Swamp, through and through, and sorta looks like a CIA front.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

[Matt Collins]

The only question is if it is better than the current system. If it is then it should be implemented. Wrong... the question is "is it Constitutional?" followed by "is it economically sound?"




As far as it being bad economic policy, the two greatest economists in history (Friedman and Hayek) as well as Charles Murray supported it so it can't just be dismissed as bad economic policy.So? Friedman also liked the Fed and invented income tax withholding. Just because an expert says something is a good idea doesn't make it so. On the face income tax witholding is a "better" system but it allowed the income tax to be more palatable. That is a bad idea. The UBI would also make taxation more palatable to the average American too. That's a bad idea. You want taxation to be painful so that people will reject it and politicians that support it.




The Michigan House is local like the US House. It isn't a statewide election.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

[tebowlives]

Except that when he advocates UBI and massive welfare programs, he isn't really "small government" any more. I do agree he is better than most, but he has some serious missteps that are very concerning for someone who is supposed to be pro-liberty.
He didn't advocate UBI that I have seen. Where did you see this? What massive welfare programs?

[devil21]

He didn't advocate UBI that I have seen. Where did you see this? What massive welfare programs?

He did, actually, on his Twitter feed. Perhaps not "UBI" in permanent sense but a continuing payment while people have been forced out of work.

On UBI, this is important info:
My 2 cents on UBI, fwiw, is that it IS YOUR MONEY already, so I don't necessarily oppose UBI, depending on how it's implemented. It's not the government's money, it's yours, you already earned it and you are entitled to your share of the Treasury trust fund that you have generated through your labor. To understand what's really going on, you have to understand that the Treasury operates a giant trust account. Read up on trusts! The Treasurer is the trustee and title holder of the trust and the trust property/money. Congress is the executor of the trust. You are the beneficiary of the trust. The money that YOU generate for government funding comes from YOUR LABOR and future potential to labor (and be taxed on), represented by Treasury bonds past and present. When/if Congress passes any statute pushing money out of the Treasury trust to you, the Congress is acting as executor of YOUR MONEY IN THE TRUST and is sending it to you, the beneficiary of the trust. If a UBI is implemented, in reality all it is doing is disbursing YOUR MONEY TO YOU, which the Treasury has held in trust for government use (ostensibly "for your benefit"). In this light, would you rather the government keep spending it on wars and handing it to Raytheon or would you rather the government disperse YOUR money to YOU?

This is important information to consider regarding general topics like federal welfare, UBI, etc.

[oyarde]

I am curious if Justin Amash could get a couple sitting "Never Trumpers" endorsement? Mitt Romney comes to mind.

Hell, maybe Romney will change his party affiliation too.

Mitt Romney (L) Utah

:tears:

Romney would be perfect big L if he would just get out front and give up religion for support of special priv for trans and killing babies .

[Krugminator2]

So? Friedman also liked the Fed


Umm..Didn't like the Fed. Wanted to eliminate the Fed. Was the most prominent Fed critic in history. Not surprising you don't know that.




https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading)

That is just a plain old fact to refute your factually false assertion that the Michigan House of Representatives is a statewide race.

[oyarde]

He didn't advocate UBI that I have seen. Where did you see this? What massive welfare programs?

Uh , ya , I think he did . In fact sounded similar to Pelosi

[tebowlives]

He did, actually, on his Twitter feed. Perhaps not "UBI" in permanent sense but a continuing payment while people have been forced out of work.

On UBI, this is important info:
My 2 cents on UBI, fwiw, is that it IS YOUR MONEY already, so I don't necessarily oppose UBI, depending on how it's implemented. It's not the government's money, it's yours, you already earned it and you are entitled to your share of the Treasury trust fund that you have generated through your labor. To understand what's really going on, you have to understand that the Treasury operates a giant trust account. Read up on trusts! The Treasurer is the trustee and title holder of the trust and the trust property/money. Congress is the executor of the trust. You are the beneficiary of the trust. The money that YOU generate for government funding comes from YOUR LABOR and future potential to labor (and be taxed on), represented by Treasury bonds past and present. When/if Congress passes any statute pushing money out of the Treasury trust to you, the Congress is acting as executor of YOUR MONEY IN THE TRUST and is sending it to you, the beneficiary of the trust. If a UBI is implemented, in reality all it is doing is disbursing YOUR MONEY TO YOU, which the Treasury has held in trust for government use (ostensibly "for your benefit"). In this light, would you rather the government keep spending it on wars and handing it to Raytheon or would you rather the government disperse YOUR money to YOU?

This is important information to consider regarding general topics like federal welfare, UBI, etc.
lol Not perhaps. He didn't. He said if guv'ment is going to shut you down, they need to compensate the property holder.

[tebowlives]

Uh , ya , I think he did . In fact sounded similar to Pelosi
Incoherent and scatterbrained? I don't think that's him.

[enhanced_deficit]

Granted election season can bring high emotions and hyperbole, hopefully Amash would avoid repeat of "speck of dirt" and "windbag" type provocative narratives when referring to globalist neocons funded pro socialism, pro big gov spending Dem politicians identifying as "R".



Actually I have railed against Rand when he pushes nonsense several times in the last few years.

Yes, have to say your stance on this has been more consistent and principled while some others libertarians have opted to take more eovolved, pragmatic, partisan or perhaps even 'tribal' stance wrt current GOPA wing leadership.

[oyarde]

lol Not perhaps. He didn't. He said if guv'ment is going to shut you down, they need to compensate the property holder.

What he should have said is government has no authority to shut you down .
I'm wanting to hear it

[tebowlives]

What he should have said is government has no authority to shut you down .
I'm wanting to hear it
"you have to be mindful of the way people react to it. So if I were a state governor—which I'm not running for to be clear—but if I were a state governor, I would give communities, particularly counties for example in the state of Michigan, more authority to make decisions along with the cities in those counties."

[trey4sports]

I think Justin's first couple of media appearances have gone well. He comes across as moderate more than libertarian - maybe by design.

[Matt Collins]

Yes, have to say your stance on this has been more consistent and principled while some others libertarians have opted to take more eovolved, pragmatic, partisan or perhaps even 'tribal' stance wrt current GOPA wing leadership.Humanz gonna human.... I try and avoid being human as much as possible.

[Matt Collins]

Umm..Didn't like the Fed. Wanted to eliminate the Fed. Was the most prominent Fed critic in history. Not surprising you don't know that.

This quotes Milton Friedman supporting the Fed:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/rand-paul-milton-friedman-federal-reserve-chairman



Maybe he changed his tune?

So at best he was inconsistent.

[Krugminator2]

This quotes Milton Friedman supporting the Fed:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/13/rand-paul-milton-friedman-federal-reserve-chairman



Maybe he changed his tune?

So at best he was inconsistent.


None of those quotes support the Federal Reserve. They do show a fundamental understanding of monetary policy that Rand lacks. It is true Friedman wasn't a liquidationist, deflationista. He favored a mechanical rules based policy instead of the whims of gold being mined out of the ground in Africa.

This clip seem pretty clear. He literally says the words. I have long favored abolishing the Federal Reserve.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fkdagNrjI

Or this interview

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/emfree-to-chooseem-a-conversation-with-milton-friedman/

The fundamental problem is that you shouldn’t have an institution such as the Federal Reserve, which depends for its success on the abilities of its chairman. My first preference would be to abolish the Federal Reserve, but that’s not going to happen.

[Matt Collins]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing, I learned something new.



But that still doesn't change my original point, which still stands, that it doesn't matter what Friedman says, a UBI is a bad idea economically, is indeed socialism, and is unconstitutional.

[tebowlives]

None of those quotes support the Federal Reserve. They do show a fundamental understanding of monetary policy that Rand lacks. It is true Friedman wasn't a liquidationist, deflationista. He favored a mechanical rules based policy instead of the whims of gold being mined out of the ground in Africa.

This clip seem pretty clear. He literally says the words. I have long favored abolishing the Federal Reserve.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fkdagNrjI

Or this interview

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/emfree-to-chooseem-a-conversation-with-milton-friedman/

Rand doesn't have a fundamental understanding of economics? lol What an absurd thing to say. So Rand doesn't understand the free market?

[devil21]

Justin better hurry up and rape someone if he's going to fit into this election season. He has a disturbing lack of sexual assault allegations against him. Tick tock Justin!

https://i.imgflip.com/21ukzu.jpg

[devil21]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing, I learned something new.



But that still doesn't change my original point, which still stands, that it doesn't matter what Friedman says, a UBI is a bad idea economically, is indeed socialism, and is unconstitutional.

The entire current economic/financial system is socialist, where money is earned by the people's labor, pooled under a trust and then redistributed. Why not disburse the current socialized money back to those who earned it in the first place, as part of dismantling that system, instead of letting the Beltway thieves keep it? I'd be ok with a UBI as long as the disbursements are commensurate with the amounts earned by each recipient. That would not be a socialist redistribution. You get back what you put in.

The ugly part of this current version of potential UBI is that the amounts in the trust earned by each person's past, present and future labor far exceed any paltry $2000 per month payment but that's for a different thread.

[Snowball]

Amash is funded by the Never Trumpers.

So obvious!

[devil21]

What he should have said is government has no authority to shut you down .
I'm wanting to hear it

They do, legally, if the business is registered with the state. How the state should act and/or critiques of the existing legal system is worthy of discussion but yes, under current legal system the state does have authority to shutter businesses.



Amash is funded by the Never Trumpers.

So obvious!

Wait, you're telling me that Amash's donors aren't Trumpkins? NO WAY THAT'S CRAZY TALK!

Do you have any other ground-breaking insights to share with us?

:rolleyes:

[oyarde]

Amash is funded by the Never Trumpers.

So obvious!

nah , they have biden

[PAF]

The entire current economic/financial system is socialist, where money is earned by the people's labor, pooled under a trust and then redistributed. Why not disburse the current socialized money back to those who earned it in the first place, as part of dismantling that system, instead of letting the Beltway thieves keep it? I'd be ok with a UBI as long as the disbursements are commensurate with the amounts earned by each recipient. That would not be a socialist redistribution. You get back what you put in.

The ugly part of this current version of potential UBI is that the amounts in the trust earned by each person's past, present and future labor far exceed any paltry $2000 per month payment but that's for a different thread.

^^ ^^