When given the opportunity historically Hispanics vote for Democrats - Socialists. Yet many self proclaimed Libertarians and Conservatives want increased immigration and a path to citizenship which would be to their own detriment. One wonders if these self proclaimers are actually not what they say they are.
Mind completely blown reading the last few pages. What really is the point of lying about the forum history? It is not like this thread is going to make some difference in the Senate race for Rand. We all have been here for awhile and know what happened, why do this?
1. There were many here that were outraged about Rand endorsing Romney before Ron had dropped out of the race. There really is no denying that since there were so many threads and so much outrage at the time. Some said they would not support him in the future because of it. It took a couple of years before people stopped reminding other forum members about it.
2. I clearly remember reading a number of threads where some members were outraged over Rand's Middle East foreign policy and Israel. I thought they were out of line and counter productive.
3. Rand did change on several issues since 2010 including immigration and border security which I pointed out in July of last year. This put me at odds with several forum members including GunnyFreedom when I said Trump will be my second choice if Rand drops out because of it. It served as the entire basis of Gunny's forum war against me. LOL.
You call Ron writing a scathing mocking press release and then making the rounds in the press only a Trump fued? Come on. I agreed with the substance of what Ron was saying but believed if you are trying to win hearts and minds you do not go around trashing people. Ron should have let the CPAC thing go.
This was the one instance Ron sided with the Republican establishment that was as equally hard on Trump. Like Rand, where did it get them. All it did was create an unnecessary feud rather than build alliances to achieve greater political capital.
Trump never throws the first punch. It was Paul supporters that interrupted and booed him at CPAC in 2011 that triggered Trump.
In hindsight his statement in the context of him running as opposed to Ron's chances of winning were factual and complimentary to Ron.
Ron however could not let it go even after Trump decided not to run. When Trump invited all the Presidential candidates to his debate forum some months later, Ron went on attack mode writing a scathing press release and took to the media to mock Trump.
So there you have the basis for the Paul-Trump feud.
The woman is absolutely correct. There is not a thing racist about it. Unless you call facts racist.
She rightly calls upon people to take responsibility for their own actions. As I recall, that's a basic tenet of libertarianism.
We are all aware of what he proposed for the killing fields currently referred to as Chicago's inner city. I disagree with him on that. I think the best approach is to let gangs keep killing the hell out of each other. Soon there will be no more problem. Unfortunately though, some innocent bystanders are going to be hurt, but what the hay. /s
Both support the Trans Pacific Partnership. Nothing but traitorous.
Weld wants to gun-grab and he reiterated it not long ago. He also co-chaired the Council on Foreign Relations' Task Force on creating a North American Union.
Is that the new definition of libertarian? Because I didn't think it was.
Yes, and I'll bet you money that the judge's instructions before the jury went in to deliberate made them believe that they HAD TO find him guilty if they thought he carried out the act. They have no idea that they are the last line of defense against a bad law or overriding circumstances. And of course, it is now illegal to hand out the juror's bill of rights anywhere near a courtroom.
Yeah, I get it, AngelaTC. But, the 3-4 Supreme Court Justices that will be placed, the Trans Pacific Partnership, rotten trade deals in general that must be renegotiated or gotten out of, the refugees, illegal aliens, etc. to me, make it worth that risk. The alternative, Hillary, poses more than a risk. It is a for sure.