Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 86

Thread: We are running out of time!

  1. #1

    Exclamation We are running out of time!

    This powerful and searing post (written by long term missing in action RPF member "Mini-Me") was so good, I have pinched it in its entirety, and given it it's own, well deserved thread.

    If the OP or the mods take issue with this, then merge or delete at your discretion, but this needs to be read.


    We are running out of time!

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...67#post6763667

    I will break my four-year silence to comment on this thread, on page 17, ninja-style.

    Swordsmyth, you are painfully correct, and I would like to expand on this at length. For good or ill, libertarianism has created many of the most rigidly principled deontologists the world has ever seen this side of Immanuel Kant. We understand instrumental rationality enough to reason well about economic outcomes, but we tend to be epistemically rational to a fault about moral issues. I suspect some of us would literally rather die than inwardly or outwardly acknowledge or express support or tolerance for any policy that violates the non-aggression principle in any circumstance whatsoever.

    We're only human, so we understand it's forgivable to accidentally slip up in our real life interactions from time to time, but to accept or approve an instrumentally rational compromise on a moral issue is to reject the moral fabric at the core of our personal identities. Permitting any nuance on this matter or giving an inch invites chaos into our hearts and makes us theoretically vulnerable to arbitrarily oppressive statist thinking based on subjective value judgments.

    The pathological libertarian cannot tolerate such a collapse of moral universality. "Not even in the face of armageddon. Never compromise," as Rorschach from Watchmen would say regarding a different moral absolute ("evil must be punished"). I have now been a libertarian now for 11.5 years, and my pragmatic self-preservation instincts spend their full-time job holding my moral idealism from the cliffs of insanity. In 2016 it was just a given that nobody could convince me to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump if they had a gun to my head, and I think I meant it literally. I may still feel the same, and this is just a weak no-brainer starting point as far as many libertarians are concerned. Most morally self-conscious people have lines they simply will not cross, but as libertarians ours tend to be far more restrictive, especially in the political sphere.

    The vast majority of the time, our consequentialist viewpoints merely reinforce our moral certitude. After all, a society that broadly adopted libertarian deontological ethics would maximize real-world utility in a way that a cacophany of 300 million screeching utilitarian voices simply never could. (They would disagree, but that's beside the point.) Directly pursuing utilitarianism generally just leads to a chaotic war of all against all, because everyone has different utility functions, most are poorly calibrated, and most are more instrumentally rational than epistemically rational to begin with (that is, most people are both short-sighted and self-centered). Libertarians are often criticized for sharing utopian thinking with communists, but this is a misconception: Unlike the ever-tweaking utopian statists, our general viewpoint is more that principled libertarian solutions are "as close" to a panacea for most socioeconomic problems as a succinct set of rules could ever get, where all but the most exceptional deviations would cause more problems than they solve. In other words, we don't want to undermine a system that works in 99% of cases to accommodate the exceptional 1% cases. We're willing to leave those to chance or charity or even accept a 1% failure rate, rather than risk tearing everything down in pursuit of that utopian 100%.

    In general, our economic and social views align so nicely with our deontological ethics that we rarely have to question whether the non-aggression principle should be our categorical imperative, or if we care more about real-world outcomes. It rarely matters whether we rejected the gun in the room before or after we built our mental model of consequences; they have become deeply intertwined. We have to examine which one is more important so infrequently that I think most of us eventually subconsciously convince ourselves that no exceptional situations even exist. It's a comforting thought. We all recognize that any state action disturbs whatever the nonviolent path of least resistance would have been, and the effect generally (always?) has negative consequences that exceed the benefit and necessitate further tweaking to mitigate. Sometimes this opens the door to possible nightmare futures, like the idea of Trump's wall being used to keep us in, as the Berlin Wall was used to keep East Germans under Communist control. Why bother quantifying this risk next to the cultural and political risks of uncontrolled or excessive immigration? If we turn our moral principles into absolutes we'll at least dodge the risk of corruption, and we can always find consequentialist rationalizations that assure us uncontrolled immigration is more of an economic benefit than a political danger.

    It is in this way, that we become deeply pathological and, I think, a danger to ourselves. In my heart of hearts I want to be an anarchist, but I've never been able to convince myself that such a system would be predictably stable and avoid catastrophic perverse incentives in practice. Neither have I been able to convince myself that I shouldn't care about the consequences anyway on moral grounds, because unconditionally upholding the NAP is the greatest possible moral good. It seems my commitment to deontological ethics is not absolute, or perhaps, that I have misidentified the precise deontological principles that should be my true categorical imperative. Maybe the NAP is a crude first-order approximation of a more accurate and nuanced universal moral principle, which takes a broader view of self-defense than I can narrowly articulate. I'd imagine that true moral principles are what they are, regardless of how easy or difficult it might be to twist their linguistic expression into a dangerously contradictory meaning. Universal laws are normally parsimonious, but on occasion they take labrynthine twists.

    In any case, I never never been able to convince myself that American culture can survive uncontrolled immigration, or that the future of liberty can survive the death of American culture, or that such an outcome is acceptable. I believe the immigration issue is an actual exception where strict adherence to the NAP is at stark odds with our goal to see real-world outcomes produce more liberty. ("GASP! TRAITOR!")

    The biggest reason has little to do with economics and everything to do with American culture and politics. Culture matters, and as Sarah Hoyt (a conservative blogger I mostly enjoy) argues here, it is more than tasty food, fancy attire, and festival days. Those are just the superficial elements. The core of culture, which multiculturalist indoctrination has always obscured (on purpose I believe), encapsulates our deeply ingrained attitudes about how human beings should interact with each other:
    • The structure of government, role of executive power, role of the legislature, principles of jurisprudence and common law, etc.
    • The role of government in society
    • The role of religion in government, and vice versa
    • The acceptable uses of violence or coercion to enforce social or economic norms
    • The definition and role of property in society
    • The rights of individuals and their responsibilities to each other, their communities, and their countries
    • Views on education, language, fatherhood, motherhood, and family, and on what the culture should encourage and discourage
    • Views on how to handle disagreement, offensive or hurtful speech, etc.
    • Morality: What is a virtue, and what is a vice? How should morality be enforced?


    The power elite understand this in a way most of their followers do not: Culture matters, and they have worked long and hard to make Americans forget ours, so they could supplant it. How many times have you heard a leftist repeat the clueless sentiment, "America has no real culture, unlike all the other countries?" It becomes more true every day as we become more polarized and divided, but it was never true in the way they speak it. America has its skeletons, and it has become frighteningly corrupt and imperialistic, but what legitimate success it did attain -- greater than probably any other country in history -- it attained as a function of culture, most of it good. Our culture is not McDonald's, barbecue, and American football. The British common law system, Enlightenment ideals of individual rights and property ownership, Protestant work ethic, entrepreneurial spirit, and rugged individualism formed the backbone of the culture that built this country. The flame of liberty still survives in the remnant, but its ideological enemies are trying to extinguish it using every means at their disposal, and the immigration system is on the list.

    Culture is not a hat that a person can swap on a whim. It forms the basis of a person's worldview, and how they interact with the world around them. If a handful of open-minded immigrants from a radically different and incompatible culture move to America to seek a better life, their cultural immersion will make them Americans before long. They won't just see that we live better than people in the countries they came from. They will see WHY. As they assimilate, they will come to understand our success as the direct consequence of our cultural differences (petrodollar hegemony notwithstanding), and they will gradually adopt our ways of thinking. However, if an enormous number of immigrants from a radically different and incompatible culture move to America to seek a better life, they will remain too segregated to assimilate. Instead of adopting traditional American values, they may see our success as mere turn of fate, and try to "culturally enrich" us with the sociopolitical attitudes that dominated their countries of origin. Worse, confronted with the leftist ideology that our success came from "stealing their resources," many will see no reason to adopt our culture or become American. Instead, they may instead agitate to "reclaim" what they're told was theirs, as "La Raza" -- "The Race" -- they will try to "reclaim" what they're told was theirs. Aztlan indeed.

    Sure, the Cloward-Piven strategy to overburden the welfare state with immigrants is also at play, and the open borders libertarians have a valid point that it wouldn't be a problem if we simply eliminated welfare. That's all well and good, but that's a GOAL, not a strategy. The question is, how do we actually get there? We can't just snap our fingers and do it! Ron Paul supporters have been trying for 12 (or 30 in some cases), and libertarians in general have been trying for decades longer than that. In all that time, we've consistently lost more ground than we've gained. The key point to understand here is simple:

    We are running out of time.

    We don't have another 47 years to waste sparring each other as the Libertarian Party has done. We may not even have another 12 years to waste, as we here on this site have done, before it's too late. It may already be too late; many of us here argued the same a decade ago. What I think many people fail to understand is that it's not just going to be too late for the US government to turn around. It's going to be too late for American culture to survive, and if American culture dies, so does every link the average person has had or will ever have, to libertarianism or even liberty in general. If you think the gulf between you and the average American is too wide to bridge today, you have no idea how bad it could get.

    Too many on the left are indoctrinated with Cultural Marxism, call-out culture, identity politics, and the virtue of dogpiling and personally destroying anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest. Too many on the right are indoctrinated with neoconservative imperialism. As grassroots conservatives and Trump supporters are mercilessly evicted from the public square by identitarian obsessives, they are becoming vulnerable to fascist and white nationalist extremes in their desperation to stop the next Bolshevik revolution.

    At this point, spreading the light of pure libertarianism to the average American is already like proselytizing for a strange alien religion with orange and blue morality in an unknown and unpleasant-sounding language, with vaguely threatening hand gestures. Our education strategy thus far has been, "Let's start with Libertarianism 710 with Ron Paul and proceed to Libertarianism 896 with Walter Block." Our audience is not remotely ready for that yet. We need to focus on the preschool basics here like "Stop stabbing each other with scissors," because that's where everywhere else is at. We cannot achieve a future of liberty without first restoring or reinvigorating latent respect for American culture, and our window of opportunity grows shorter every day, and with every migrant caravan.

    Traditional American principles lose more mindshare every year, and a significant contributor includes immigration from culturally opposed countries at a rate that exceeds our ability to culturally assimilate the immigrants. Many on this forum seem to argue, "Our fellow Americans are doing plenty well throwing away their own culture anyway." That may be true, but this is an obfuscating rationalization for inaction, not a mitigating factor. Bringing up a second problem does not make the first one go away. Both problems reinforce each other.

    If we want any hope at all, we need to buy time. We need to buy time!

    I constantly read posts from fellow libertarians CaptUSA, acptulsa, Ender, PAF, SuperfluousMan, etc. scolding the libertarian-leaning conservatives like Swordsmyth and kahless about how the CORRECT approach is to "Just eliminate the welfare system." OH, WOW, WHAT AN INSIGHT! We could just eliminate the welfare system, and it won't be overburdened anymore! Holy cow, why didn't I think of that sooner? It's not like we've been trying to do that already for decades with only negative results to show for it, right?

    As I said above, eliminating welfare is a goal, a destination, not a strategy. If we could do that, we'd have already won. That's probably the absolute last pillar of runaway statism that will ever fall, so how do we expect to get there? It's not even a "Plan A," and if our actual "Plan A" is "Just educate people," we've been doing that one long enough to estimate its time to success as well: At the current rate it will take roughly infinite eons, although I suppose we could more precisely describe it with a negative number of years that represents our opposite-pointing velocity vector.

    Lately it feels like we're all on a ship headed for Liberty Island. We've been pointing our sails toward Liberty Island for literally decades, but it's still nowhere in sight, and all of the navigational signs indicate the wind has been pushing us backwards for quite some time. We're probably leagues farther from our destination than we started. Meanwhile, the creaky wooden ship is riddled with holes, and it's taking on water fast. Some of the uncultured pirates aboard start saying,

    "Hey, there's a hole, and we're taking on water! Help me plug this up!"

    Our more astute philosophers say,

    "Wait! Don't touch it! You might make it worse! Just...just...just go to Liberty Island instead! That's what we need to focus on, going to Liberty Island. Just go there! That's the solution to our problem."

    The pirates shout, panicked, "But no, seriously! We are going backwards and taking on water! There's no telling how long it will take to get to Liberty Island, but I can guarantee we'd all be dead before we get there if we don't stop the flooding! Why don't you help me plug up this hole?"

    The great philosophers reply in their wisdom, "What's the point in plugging that hole? There are plenty of other holes anyway. Put that hammer down before you hurt yourself, and let's just go to Liberty Island instead!"

    If "just educate people" is our "Plan A," and it appears like it will take literally forever, it seems like we have no choice but to support some "Plan B" which will help buy us more time (hopefully a lot). That's especially true when the bigger problem involves the culture shifting away from us in the first place. Slowing or stopping the deliberate dilution of American culture via heterodox immigration would give us at least a little bit of the breathing room we need, and we need every bit of it that we can get.

    As it stands, any kind of border control requires one or both of these two things:
    1. Establish and maintain control of border ingress (if not egress)
    2. Deport illegal aliens already in the United States


    Of the two options, method '1' is far superior. Deportations are horribly inhumane practices that destroy people's lives, and they provide a continued pretext for an ever-increasing police state and surveillance dragnet, combined with an enormous budget for the predictably ineffective results. No, thank you.

    In contrast, tightening the border via almost any mechanism (wall, alert sensors, minutemen...) is far more humane, and putting a moratorium on unskilled immigration wouldn't hurt. Side note: Like virtually everyone else here, I vehemently oppose the 100 mile Constitution-free zone, etc. Acting as though reluctant border control supporters on Ron Paul Forums believe in a total police state is shamefully disingenuous. (If you dare accuse me of this, I will tell your mother, and you will be in so much trouble.)

    As it stands, the conservatives and Trumpettes have presented us with a possible "Plan B" that could buy us more time. They're advocating for a wall, which is arguably the worst version of approach '1'. They've even already backed themselves into a corner where the stupid thing will only cover a fraction of the border and still costs $5 billion. As inane as that may sound, guess what? It still has far more traction than virtually anything we've ever done. I'm not going to lie here. I'm ambivalent about the wall. I'm willing to grudgingly accept it for the hope of a good outcome, but I don't want to want it, and I think the concerns that it could eventually be used to keep us in are valid. However, what other viable short/medium-term option do we have that doesn't involve continuing to drive off the same cliff?

    The United States is likely the world's last stand for liberty. Either we revive American culture, or libertarianism dies with it. We don't have the option to enact our magic libertarian dream plan either. That's not in the cards for us any time soon, because we're only bit players. That means we can either form a coalition with the [ostensibly] ruling party on an issue of potential joint interest, or we can pound sand and continue helplessly dying in our armchair perfectionist irrelevance. Those are our options this year, as I see it.

    If we support the wall as a dirty strategic compromise (by itself, without additional police state boondoggles attached), it might help us buy some of the time we need to turn things around. Our support might also be used to get a last-minute version with all sorts of horrifying extras attached as well. It could also just be immediately used to keep us in, and never benefit us one bit. Those are the risks we'd take by supporting it. They're terrible, but the option also provides a glimmer of hope that our time horizon may grow substantially. The alternative to taking a risk is to continue on the same path with the certainty that we'll go where we've been going.

    My idealistic side desperately wants to believe that principled libertarian advocacy alone will save us, but I don't see a viable strategy at this late stage, and at the end of the day, I want to live. I did not sign up for a suicide pact. I want my unborn children to grow up in a world where some Enlightenment-inspired civilization still exists, however imperfect it may be. Unless someone can suggest an actual alternative (and mutually exclusive) strategy that is within our power to realistically get us to Liberty Island alive in our allotted time under our present constraints, or that will buy us more time than the dunderheaded conservatives' idea, I have to side with the conservatives on the wall, notwithstanding my caveats.* I'll take that over impotently walking off into the ocean in despair, paralyzed by the NAP.

    *Caveat: For the record, I do agree with Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Andrew Napolitano on the specific topic of this thread (though not always as strongly): Unilaterally declaring a national emergency over the border situation appears to be an unconstitutional executive overreach at this point, regardless of my views on the wall itself. johnwk has made a rather admirable effort trying to justify it in terms of the actual law, but the stretches of reasoning involved seem to go into "living document" territory where I dare not tread.

    Even the federal power for Congress to control immigration itself rests on Constitutionally shaky ground. It seems to be a reasonable joint interpretation of the Commerce Clause, "repel invasions" clause, and "necessary and proper" clause, at least in such a manner that a wall along any state's border (for instance) could be construed as a reasonable exercise, given the appropriate magic words describing a congruent purpose. However, the wording does not explicitly encapsulate immigration. It's possible the power rightfully belongs to the states (and half-jokingly, perhaps the power of deportation from Texas to California still does), as it did in practice prior to the Page Act of 1875. Still, the Commerce Clause could have always interfered with the states in theory, and the Page Act made it a federal playground in practice anyway, for good or ill. At this point only strict constructionists would ever attack the Constitutionality of federal immigration control in good faith (even if leftists might attack it in bad faith, while interpreting the Constitution loosely everywhere else), so it is more the executive overreach that should concern us as a serious problem.

    The left, neoconservatives, and power elite routinely act on larger leaps, but our joint cause uniquely rejects that "might makes right" opportunism as a selling point. Sinking to the same level of lawlessness would therefore uniquely delegitimize that cause. No good-faith independent observer outside our libertarian sphere would ever predicate their respect and attention on our rigidly pure adherence to a deontological libertarian ideology that's alien to them to begin with, but we must at least respect the rule of law to effectively demonstrate moral superiority over arbitrary statism.

    Everyone here understands that we cannot permit a judge in North Carolina to invalidate voter-ratified Constitutional Amendments (or 18 months of legislation) for the entirely subjective rationale that a gerrymandered and therefore "invalid" legislature provided voters the option. For a similar reason, we cannot permit a President to subjectively redefine the contractual use of "invasion" in the Constitution to mean anything other than the plain meaning of the words to the two signing parties as the time of ratification.

    That is not to say Trump is strictly wrong to call it an invasion though: The leaders of the left are indeed systematically encouraging an excessive amount of immigration, on purpose, to reshape politics by transforming the country's demographics. This also ties in with the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming taxpayer funded safety nets to foment socialist agitation, but I believe that is secondary. Either way, I'd colloquially call it a treason-assisted invasion in principle, if not according to the precise meanings of the words as understood by those who ratified the Constitution. The precise legalities must matter here though, because if they don't matter to us, they may never again matter to anyone...maybe for hundreds of years, or maybe forever.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    This goes to the point several here have been making. The sense that we are indeed in an emergency and at an existential crossroads for this nation. The opposition party has become radicalized socialists who want to fundamentally change this nation. The rules have been to follow the Constitution. The problem is, they don’t care about the Constitution. The want open boarders and give non citizens voting rights. There has never been as great a political divide on the direction of this nation since the Civil War. This ship is sinking fast and while debate is happening about the arraignment of the deck chairs, there may soon not be a ship left floating. Is this being too alarmist? Maybe, but it’s how several people here (and I think a growing number of people) are seeing it. There is a coup that’s being going on against the elected President involving the upper levels of government and their propaganda media outlets for two years and this is a political war and I don’t blame the President for assuming an emergency/war path footing in order to secure the nation. I think in the end the courts will say the same thing.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  4. #3
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,214
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    I don't disagree. My path in life has lead me from being a liberal at 20 to a libertarian at 35 to accepting that the GOP is my best tool for stopping the greatest threat to liberty ever created... Marxists. I have always recognized the problems of the GOP, but I now see the Democrat party that I once belonged to as being the worst abusers of humanity.

    Socialism < Capitalism

    Ron Paul left the Libertarian party to rejoin the Republican party for a good reason. With all of the statist problems of the GOP, the left is worse, much worse. I would say "in my opinion", but I feel very confident that it is a fact.

    The Democrats want to import more statist, BIG GOVT, Marxist voters and their motivation is to destroy our Republic and replace it with a Democracy. Looters gotta loot.

    Time is running out and I will gladly work with Republicans to defend the idea that individual liberty does matter. I certainly can't wait for the Libertarian party to stop being irrelevant.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  5. #4
    Very well written post and I think you've touched upon a few different issues. I did not take any notes so I will try to cover them as I remember them.

    1. Incrementalism is the enemy of progress with regards to libertarian ideals. It is easy (and correct) to argue that the culture of certain countries, races- what have you, are geared towards monarchical oppression or even simply a strong central government and social plan. (socialism, welfarism, etc.) The question is what, if anything, we do about it (while keeping in mind that there is nothing so permanent as a government program or in this case, plan). As well, while everyone is trying to be reasonable, incremental and reasonable encroachments will continue.

    After all, there is legitimate concern (as you've addressed) with what it would take to seriously deter immigration to this country. RealID and eVerify (and facial recognition) piggyback on the relatively reasonable wall. It is a package deal (regardless of what they say) and there is no reason to believe that it ends with a wall.

    The wall isn't going to work in any meaningful way to deter immigration.

    Here's how it will work:

    The wall is built making it more difficult for immigrants to cross the border. The price to those assisting the voyage of these immigrants goes up (as the penalties and difficulty for as much goes up). More ruthless people get into the trade (cartels and other assorted gangsters who already have smuggling routes set up available). Submarines, if the price per head warrants it, tunnels, air travel, etc. are used. Those signing on to come here are indentured to repay the inflated costs. Violence and extortion (human suffering) surrounding the nonpayment goes up as well.

    It also doesn't address those who simply overstay their Visas or those born here from immigrant parents. That is why people don't typically argue for a wall without deportation. You would need them both (and it still wouldn't be enough). You would also need a panopticon and a society of suspicious agents for the state (I'm sure there would be enough volunteers to realize this supposed means to an end). Drones, Backscatter X-ray, and a Constitution Free Zone, along with a sizable force of unaccountable agents patrolling the desert and sea are simply a given so while a wall might seem reasonable, it is tacit endorsement of the entirety of the policy needed to significantly reduce immigration (for the time being, as technologies to evade these measures mature).

    2. You have mentioned that pointing out that Americans also vote for or want these socialist policies is missing the point, or rather is an obfuscation of the topic at hand but I would partially disagree. Sure, just pointing out another problem in the face of a problem is hardly a solution to anything. However when I bring it up it is to point out that there are larger fish to fry (than immigration) with regards to changing the landscape of political discourse in this country .

    Namely: Education. Homeschooling your children (or lobbying and activating to change the curriculum of public schools) is a powerful, albeit small, solution when it is able to be applied.

    3. I have found some solace in the fact that the earth, and humanity, seems to be an ebb and flow. I cannot take things too seriously (though I do) as in my experience this is a temporary (though regardless if it is not) plane we're inhabiting. I live free daily. I don't concern myself with the opinions (laws) of tyrants. Boiling frogs?- Maybe. But we all have lines and thus far I have been able to enjoy luxuries even kings and queens would not have imagined just one hundred years ago. While I get frustrated with petty tyrants et al. I try not to let it affect my life (though I have been known to spit at TSA agents... one of my prouder and also not so proud moments). I am a simple man and find peace in as much. I've been impeded and hindered at every gate but still have managed, through hard work and determination, to be rich in life and spirit. What I am saying is that you ought not have an aneurysm over what a bunch of unimportant pieces of space trash believe. We are pebbles on a beach (that is not to downplay the existence of tyranny- just an attempt to put it in my perspective).

    4. This is not necessarily my perspective but what if the ship has already taken on too much water? I'm not wasting my time bailing against the flood. Maybe I'm enjoying the sunset- eating the last of my steak, drinking the last of my beer. Sure when the ship sinks, I'll be attempting to find some driftwood to float on. If I were lucky enough and saw it coming, maybe I secured me a raft.

    To summarize, immigration is small potatoes, in my opinion.
    Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 03-08-2019 at 02:31 PM.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  6. #5
    This might be an ignorant comment by way of a question as have not read the whole post and commenting by looking at the surface of this issue.

    How many of the people who think GOP-Adelson is fightng for liberty also argued that Bush-Cheney were defending our freedoms by invading Iraq border based on bogus claims while leaving southern borders open with fast track Iraqi freedom soldiering options?
    An argument that the fight is for "tribal self-interest" would be much more compelling than calling it a fight for "liberty".

    A ragtag collection of opportunist neocons funded by globalist pro oppressions/pro occupations/ pro wars money baggers don't tend to be defenders of liberty historically... though anything is possible in the modern make believe age of reality tv and its stars.


    ...GOP is my best tool for stopping the greatest threat to liberty ever created... Marxists.
    I'm sympathetic to that argument somewhat looking at whiny cowardly character of many Dems but dumb blunders of GOP ( many of whom are now part of current "liberty" GOP) would probably take 100% responsibility for election of last major "Marxist" Obama. GOP dumbos did so terrible that many common sense folks felt obliged to support a "Marxist" over GOP. Many of same fakenews geniuses are now circling the new and imporoved bold "NY conservatives" leadership that to be fair does have extraordinary talent in media combat skills and taking positions on all sides of any given issue.
    So called Marxist Obama did great damage to liberty as well as traditional American conservative psyche to the point that depressed masses were hungry for a shiny new messiah but credit for what took place rests with GOP itself looking at cause n effect. Many of recent debt/liberty problems are rooted in a blunderous foreign policy and there is little change on that front.

    I don't agree with extreme anti-MAGA conservatives like Coulter but she's starting to appeal to some conservatives and that's a bad sign for future of current strand of "liberty" GOP post 2020.

    “Why would you [vote for him again]? Coulter calls border agreement Trump's 'Yellow New Deal'

    "Trump talks a good game on the border wall but it's increasingly clear he's afraid to fight for it," Coulter tweeted to her 2.13 million followers. "Call this his 'Yellow New Deal.'"
    Trump talks a good game on the border wall but it's increasingly clear he's afraid to fight for it. Call this his "Yellow New Deal."

    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 12, 2019
    Au contraire, @realDonaldTrump! America will be a socialist country within 5 years, if you don't build the wall.
    — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 12, 2019

    “Why would you [vote for him again]?” the provocative author and columnist asked during a Daily Caller interview on Dec. 20. “To make sure, I don’t know, Ivanka [Trump] and Jared [Kushner] can make money? That seems to be the main point of the presidency at this point.”


    “They’re about to have a country where no Republican will ever be elected president again,” she added. “Trump will just have been a joke presidency who scammed the American people, amused the populists for a while, but he’ll have no legacy whatsoever."

    Related







    Trump: We will show 'great heart' on DACA

    GOP Immigration Deal: Potentially ‘Biggest’ Amnesty in U.S. History

    Trump's Friends At Breitbart Brand Him 'Amnesty Don' Over DACA Comments

  7. #6
    Great post and very well written. I was once anarcho capitalist and ideally would strive for such. In the current system I wont see it in my lifetime but am doing what I think will buy us more time. There is a huge uphill battle ahead. A lot of work needs to be done. Ironic i know but we are too far down the hill and need the state to help us return. The system that was set in place is being perverted as used against us from enemies outside and within

  8. #7
    Great post. I try to get as much as I can out of the GOP as well even though I know on the major issues they are going to let me down.
    Last edited by Anti Globalist; 03-08-2019 at 02:56 PM.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  9. #8
    This is why I advise all of my friends to vote GOP all the way down the ballot.

    If we all do the same, this country will be saved in no time.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    This is why I advise all of my friends to vote GOP all the way down the ballot.
    If we all do the same, this country will be saved in no time.

    Not me, ever. I won't support a party that thinks perpetual war is great, that has failed to stand up for the constitution, that has literally bankrupted what is left of the nation, that thinks smug war criminals like Elliot Abrahms should be involved with the latest ripoff of a sovereign nation. The republicans are just as despicable as the democrats.

    People here used to at least pay lip service to quotes like these

    Let me … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party.
    ~ George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

    There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
    ~ John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (October 2, 1780). In: Charles Francis Adams (ed.), The Works of John Adams, Vol. 9, Boston, 1854. pp. 510-11.

    I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
    ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Francis Hopkinson (March 13, 1789). In: Merrill D. Peterson (ed.), Letters of Thomas Jefferson, New York, 1984, pp. 940-42. [PL Ford, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 5, pp. 75-78].

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
    ~ George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

    The alternate triumphs of different parties … make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels.
    ~ George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

    The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
    ~ George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

    [The spirit of party] serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another.
    ~ George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

    [The spirit of party] opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.
    ~ George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.
    I stand with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and against your despicable attempts to hoodwink even more suckers into a failed system. 2 political "parties" have ruined the nation. The US is fiscally, spiritually and morally bankrupt. I will do whatever I can in whatever time I have left to convince others that republicans and democrats have led to the destruction of a great experiment. Present day US couldn't even build a national interstate highway system (like great Americans did before) if they wanted.

    The American Empire is dead and it couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.
    Rand lied about Crimea and Iran
    " US Must Take Strong Action Against Putin's Aggression" -Rand
    “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative”-Rand Paul
    WARNING: mods/admins are editing sigs without notice

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace Piper View Post
    Not me, ever. I won't support a party that thinks perpetual war is great, that has failed to stand up for the constitution, that has literally bankrupted what is left of the nation, that thinks smug war criminals like Elliot Abrahms should be involved with the latest ripoff of a sovereign nation. The republicans are just as despicable as the democrats.
    You do realize that @TheTexan is a "satire" account, right?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Very well written post and I think you've touched upon a few different issues. I did not take any notes so I will try to cover them as I remember them.

    1. Incrementalism is the enemy of progress with regards to libertarian ideals. It is easy (and correct) to argue that the culture of certain countries, races- what have you, are geared towards monarchical oppression or even simply a strong central government and social plan. (socialism, welfarism, etc.) The question is what, if anything, we do about it (while keeping in mind that there is nothing so permanent as a government program or in this case, plan). As well, while everyone is trying to be reasonable, incremental and reasonable encroachments will continue.

    After all, there is legitimate concern (as you've addressed) with what it would take to seriously deter immigration to this country. RealID and eVerify (and facial recognition) piggyback on the relatively reasonable wall. It is a package deal (regardless of what they say) and there is no reason to believe that it ends with a wall.

    The wall isn't going to work in any meaningful way to deter immigration.

    Here's how it will work:

    The wall is built making it more difficult for immigrants to cross the border. The price to those assisting the voyage of these immigrants goes up (as the penalties and difficulty for as much goes up). More ruthless people get into the trade (cartels and other assorted gangsters who already have smuggling routes set up available). Submarines, if the price per head warrants it, tunnels, air travel, etc. are used. Those signing on to come here are indentured to repay the inflated costs. Violence and extortion (human suffering) surrounding the nonpayment goes up as well.

    It also doesn't address those who simply overstay their Visas or those born here from immigrant parents. That is why people don't typically argue for a wall without deportation. You would need them both (and it still wouldn't be enough). You would also need a panopticon and a society of suspicious agents for the state (I'm sure there would be enough volunteers to realize this supposed means to an end). Drones, Backscatter X-ray, and a Constitution Free Zone, along with a sizable force of unaccountable agents patrolling the desert and sea are simply a given so while a wall might seem reasonable, it is tacit endorsement of the entirety of the policy needed to significantly reduce immigration (for the time being, as technologies to evade these measures mature).

    2. You have mentioned that pointing out that Americans also vote for or want these socialist policies is missing the point, or rather is an obfuscation of the topic at hand but I would partially disagree. Sure, just pointing out another problem in the face of a problem is hardly a solution to anything. However when I bring it up it is to point out that there are larger fish to fry (than immigration) with regards to changing the landscape of political discourse in this country .

    Namely: Education. Homeschooling your children (or lobbying and activating to change the curriculum of public schools) is a powerful, albeit small, solution when it is able to be applied.

    3. I have found some solace in the fact that the earth, and humanity, seems to be an ebb and flow. I cannot take things too seriously (though I do) as in my experience this is a temporary (though regardless if it is not) plane we're inhabiting. I live free daily. I don't concern myself with the opinions (laws) of tyrants. Boiling frogs?- Maybe. But we all have lines and thus far I have been able to enjoy luxuries even kings and queens would not have imagined just one hundred years ago. While I get frustrated with petty tyrants et al. I try not to let it affect my life (though I have been known to spit at TSA agents... one of my prouder and also not so proud moments). I am a simple man and find peace in as much. I've been impeded and hindered at every gate but still have managed, through hard work and determination, to be rich in life and spirit. What I am saying is that you ought not have an aneurysm over what a bunch of unimportant pieces of space trash believe. We are pebbles on a beach (that is not to downplay the existence of tyranny- just an attempt to put it in my perspective).

    4. This is not necessarily my perspective but what if the ship has already taken on too much water? I'm not wasting my time bailing against the flood. Maybe I'm enjoying the sunset- eating the last of my steak, drinking the last of my beer. Sure when the ship sinks, I'll be attempting to find some driftwood to float on. If I were lucky enough and saw it coming, maybe I secured me a raft.

    To summarize, immigration is small potatoes, in my opinion.
    We don't need 100% effectiveness or the police state that would require, anything that makes it harder, more expensive or more dangerous will reduce the incentive and the number of people willing to try and we need to reduce the flow or we will lose any hope for liberty, you are worried about the liberty we risk losing responding to the problem but we will lose far more if we don't respond.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    You do realize that @TheTexan is a "satire" account, right?
    TheTexan makes the most sense and literally one of my favorite board members.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    TheTexan makes the most sense and literally one of my favorite board members.
    I'll be voting for TheTexan - who else is going to keep us safe, ensure economic growth, and make america straight again?

    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Mini-Me

    Culture is not a hat that a person can swap on a whim. It forms the basis of a person's worldview, and how they interact with the world around them. If a handful of open-minded immigrants from a radically different and incompatible culture move to America to seek a better life, their cultural immersion will make them Americans before long. They won't just see that we live better than people in the countries they came from. They will see WHY. As they assimilate, they will come to understand our success as the direct consequence of our cultural differences (petrodollar hegemony notwithstanding), and they will gradually adopt our ways of thinking. However, if an enormous number of immigrants from a radically different and incompatible culture move to America to seek a better life, they will remain too segregated to assimilate. Instead of adopting traditional American values, they may see our success as mere turn of fate, and try to "culturally enrich" us with the sociopolitical attitudes that dominated their countries of origin. Worse, confronted with the leftist ideology that our success came from "stealing their resources," many will see no reason to adopt our culture or become American. Instead, they may instead agitate to "reclaim" what they're told was theirs, as "La Raza" -- "The Race" -- they will try to "reclaim" what they're told was theirs. Aztlan indeed.
    Sounds like Mini-Me was channeling T-Jeff in that paragraph

    Thomas Jefferson – from “Notes on the State of Virginia”

    But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together.

    Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe.

    It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.

    These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

    [nobody's_hero- Is that not EXACTLY what we're seeing today? It is by design.]

    I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?

    Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements.

    I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expence in obtaining them. They will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but, in the mean time, they will teach us something we do not know. It is not so in agriculture. The indifferent state of that among us does not proceed from a want of knowledge merely; it is from our having such quantities of land to waste as we please. In Europe the object is to make the most of their land, labour being abundant: here it is to make the most of our labour, land being abundant.
    ----------------------------------------
    And to this, I nearly fell out my chair laughing. That's such a succinct way to put it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mini-Me
    At this point, spreading the light of pure libertarianism to the average American is already like proselytizing for a strange alien religion with orange and blue morality in an unknown and unpleasant-sounding language, with vaguely threatening hand gestures. Our education strategy thus far has been, "Let's start with Libertarianism 710 with Ron Paul and proceed to Libertarianism 896 with Walter Block." Our audience is not remotely ready for that yet. We need to focus on the preschool basics here like "Stop stabbing each other with scissors," because that's where everywhere else is at. We cannot achieve a future of liberty without first restoring or reinvigorating latent respect for American culture, and our window of opportunity grows shorter every day, and with every migrant caravan.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 03-09-2019 at 04:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

  17. #15
    I just now saw this. My response. I hope @Mini-Me and @Swordsmyth will read it.

    This is the first (and IMO most important) point to make. Just because someone disagrees with your solution doesn't mean they don't think there is a problem worth addressing. That is the position that those pushing for government takeover of healthcare take. You don't support their ideas on healthcare? You must just want people to die! They falsely claim that you don't have any proposals of your own to put forward, or if you do they are "bad" somehow. The CEO of Whole Foods put forward a free market proposal on healthcare prior to the passage of the so called "Affordable Care Act" and for his troubles he was attacked and a boycott against Whole Foods was organized. (One of those attacking the Whole Foods CEO was Max Keiser who is often on the Alex Jones show. He called for the boycott on AJ's show and AJ didn't bust him for it. Needless to say I was sorely disappointed with Alex Jones that day.)

    Mini-Me makes several points that I'd like to address. My thoughts in italics.

    1) American culture is in decline.

    In any case, I never never been able to convince myself that American culture can survive uncontrolled immigration, or that the future of liberty can survive the death of American culture, or that such an outcome is acceptable. I believe the immigration issue is an actual exception where strict adherence to the NAP is at stark odds with our goal to see real-world outcomes produce more liberty. ("GASP! TRAITOR!")
    Well....duh!

    2) This decline is connected to mass immigration.

    Ummmm....I don't think so. Hollywood is not run by first generation immigrants. Neither is the music industry. Neither is the television industry. Probably the recent movie that expressed the value of hard work and free enterprise the most is "Crazy Rich Asians" which was written by, directed by, and mostly starred....Asians. You can't say who's really behind the decline of culture in America because that will get you banned. Just blame it on the immigrants. They are a safer target.

    3) The left wants immigration for a permanent democratic majority.

    That is not to say Trump is strictly wrong to call it an invasion though: The leaders of the left are indeed systematically encouraging an excessive amount of immigration, on purpose, to reshape politics by transforming the country's demographics. This also ties in with the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming taxpayer funded safety nets to foment socialist agitation, but I believe that is secondary. Either way, I'd colloquially call it a treason-assisted invasion in principle, if not according to the precise meanings of the words as understood by those who ratified the Constitution. The precise legalities must matter here though, because if they don't matter to us, they may never again matter to anyone...maybe for hundreds of years, or maybe forever.
    This is a self fulfilling prophecy. There is "blowback" coming from hardline immigration policy itself. Back in 1992 a solid majority of Asians self identified as republicans. Now a bigger majority self identify as democrats. Now the lie some on the right keep telling themselves is "Well it's not our fault. They would just be leaning democrat because they don't love freedom!" That's like saying it's not the fault of U.S. foreign policy that there has been a sharp increase in Muslim hatred of the United States since we started interfering in their affairs. The truth is that Asians have a higher median income than even white people. That means they have a higher incentive to want lower taxes. So why go democrat? Self interest. Nobody on the right begrudges white people for acting in self interest. This is no different. H1B visas are in the interest of Asian Americans. And they will stomach some higher taxes in exchange for more of their family members who have a high skill set to be able to come to the United States. You could get Asians to go along with reducing or even stopping low skilled immigration if you gave ground on high skilled immigration.

    4) The wall won't actually accomplish much (if anything)....but we need it because it will do something and there are no good alternatives.

    As it stands, the conservatives and Trumpettes have presented us with a possible "Plan B" that could buy us more time. They're advocating for a wall, which is arguably the worst version of approach '1'. They've even already backed themselves into a corner where the stupid thing will only cover a fraction of the border and still costs $5 billion. As inane as that may sound, guess what? It still has far more traction than virtually anything we've ever done. I'm not going to lie here. I'm ambivalent about the wall. I'm willing to grudgingly accept it for the hope of a good outcome, but I don't want to want it, and I think the concerns that it could eventually be used to keep us in are valid. However, what other viable short/medium-term option do we have that doesn't involve continuing to drive off the same cliff?
    Seriously, nobody has articulated what the wall is supposed to actually do. Mini-Me admits that even at $5 billion, it will only cover fraction (his words, not mine) of the border. And that doesn't even address the fact that under current law, if you are an asylum seeker who has made it to the Mexico side of the wall, border patrol has to let you apply for asylum because the "Mexican side" is still U.S. soil. And there are viable alternatives that would actually do more good. One example would use $5 billion to hire immigration judges and staff immigration courts. I will give some more alternatives further down in my response.

    5) Sure this is unconstitutional...but...

    *Caveat: For the record, I do agree with Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Andrew Napolitano on the specific topic of this thread (though not always as strongly): Unilaterally declaring a national emergency over the border situation appears to be an unconstitutional executive overreach at this point, regardless of my views on the wall itself. johnwk has made a rather admirable effort trying to justify it in terms of the actual law, but the stretches of reasoning involved seem to go into "living document" territory where I dare not tread.
    .
    .
    .
    Everyone here understands that we cannot permit a judge in North Carolina to invalidate voter-ratified Constitutional Amendments (or 18 months of legislation) for the entirely subjective rationale that a gerrymandered and therefore "invalid" legislature provided voters the option. For a similar reason, we cannot permit a President to subjectively redefine the contractual use of "invasion" in the Constitution to mean anything other than the plain meaning of the words to the two signing parties as the time of ratification.
    .
    .
    .
    Sometimes this opens the door to possible nightmare futures, like the idea of Trump's wall being used to keep us in, as the Berlin Wall was used to keep East Germans under Communist control. Why bother quantifying this risk next to the cultural and political risks of uncontrolled or excessive immigration? If we turn our moral principles into absolutes we'll at least dodge the risk of corruption, and we can always find consequentialist rationalizations that assure us uncontrolled immigration is more of an economic benefit than a political danger.
    Mini-Me conceded that the use of executive power was overreach by Trump. So...we're supposed to go with unconstitutional overreach for something that the side that's arguing for it can't articulate what it will accomplish because.......? Mini-Me also conceded that the border wall could become like the Berlin wall. But I shouldn't be worried about this because.....?

    6) We should support the wall as a "dirty compromise" as long as the "police state boondoggles" aren't included.

    If we support the wall as a dirty strategic compromise (by itself, without additional police state boondoggles attached), it might help us buy some of the time we need to turn things around. Our support might also be used to get a last-minute version with all sorts of horrifying extras attached as well. It could also just be immediately used to keep us in, and never benefit us one bit. Those are the risks we'd take by supporting it. They're terrible, but the option also provides a glimmer of hope that our time horizon may grow substantially. The alternative to taking a risk is to continue on the same path with the certainty that we'll go where we've been going.
    But they will be included. Trump already put face scanning cameras at airports by executive order. Crickets from the "immigration is a national emergency" crowd.

    7) Don't accuse us of supporting the 100 mile constitution free zone because we don't.

    In contrast, tightening the border via almost any mechanism (wall, alert sensors, minutemen...) is far more humane, and putting a moratorium on unskilled immigration wouldn't hurt. Side note: Like virtually everyone else here, I vehemently oppose the 100 mile Constitution-free zone, etc. Acting as though reluctant border control supporters on Ron Paul Forums believe in a total police state is shamefully disingenuous. (If you dare accuse me of this, I will tell your mother, and you will be in so much trouble.)
    Whether you support it or not, it exists. Most of the proposals Trump has put forward, including the wall, expand the police state.

    8) Getting rid of the welfare state is great but just not possible.

    Sure, the Cloward-Piven strategy to overburden the welfare state with immigrants is also at play, and the open borders libertarians have a valid point that it wouldn't be a problem if we simply eliminated welfare. That's all well and good, but that's a GOAL, not a strategy. The question is, how do we actually get there? We can't just snap our fingers and do it! Ron Paul supporters have been trying for 12 (or 30 in some cases), and libertarians in general have been trying for decades longer than that. In all that time, we've consistently lost more ground than we've gained.
    That doesn't mean you don't try. If Trump had shut down the government over passage of a law cutting welfare to illegal immigrants it would have totally changed the nature of the debate. For those same 12 or so years, people have been trying to build a border wall. Trump finally admitted it's not possible to build a wall across the entire border. So...why are some of us focusing on a border wall to the exclusion of all other options?

    Also that's not the only non police state proposal out there. For example, my proposal to help Mexico build a wall on its southern border. We already send Mexico billions in aid to fight the phony drug war! That aid could be re-purposed to fund building a wall on Mexico's southern border. It's much shorter than the U.S. border which means that a wall on Mexico's southern border could be completed for a fraction of the cost. There's also no constitutional problem like the one Mini-Me admitted there is with the Trump emergency declaration for a border wall.


    9) There are good and bad people on both sides...let's all get along.

    For instance, I'd like to discuss Swordsmyth for a moment (please forgive me for gossiping about you in the third person like you're not around to read it). Swordsmyth is far from a shill, and he's actually among the most intellectually honest posters on the whole board when it comes to tirelessly, patiently addressing his opponents' arguments in good faith. That doesn't mean he's always right; sometimes he misses subtleties, but he does try to address people's arguments directly the vast majority of the time (despite how jmdrake must have felt being misunderstood this whole thread). Sure, his obnoxious partisan language like "Demoncrats" is grating, childish, beneath his intellect, and counterproductively limits his reach. I also have no idea how he pays the bills with all his time on the forums, unless he's unemployed, which he claims not to be. (For that matter, I couldn't post half as much as the rest of you when I WAS unemployed...) However, I have seen far fewer signs of disingenuous squirreliness from him than I've seen from some others, who I'd "known" and respected for years. You can disagree with the guy without making it so personal all the time and treating him like some enemy infiltrator. He's not Walter Block (and neither am I), but can you honestly think of many other forums that better suit his (actual, non-straw-manned) views?
    Well I appreciate that Mini-Me recognizes I feel mis-understood. I did and I do. I also myself cannot understand why unconstitutional proposals like using emergency powers to build a wall that the other side has to admit won't accomplish what they want it to accomplish are treated by some as sacred cows, but constitutionally defensible proposals like using the foreign aid we already send to Mexico to help them build a wall on their southern border get met with so much vitriol. Again this reminds me of the Affordable Care Act. If you oppose it, you want poor sick people to die. If you come up with alternatives....you are attacked for your alternatives.

    10) The reason not so many people come here anymore has nothing to do with the infighting.

    On a similar note, the oft-repeated claim that the "right-wing trolls" have driven everyone away from RonPaulForums is a cynical and self-serving delusion from people whose IQ's are two-to-three standard deviations beyond the threshold for knowing better. Rand Paul's 2016 Presidential campaign was a bland disappointment that killed a lot of energy, and our lack of activity has nothing to do with one crowd driving another away. Our lack of activity comes from the site lacking a strong common purpose anymore. We aren't rallying behind any initiatives, any campaigns, or any flagbearers. The Ron Paul Liberty Report is good as usual, and I find it reasonable even in the rare case where my priority evaluation differs (immigration), but it doesn't inspire any kind of activity here. People just kind of linger to share outrage stories, yell at each other, work out their emotional need to feel involved, and pray that maybe someday we'll get the opportunity to do something important again. I hope we do, because the alternative is bleak.
    I can speak only for myself. Sometimes it is weary posting here and it's not just because Rand isn't about to be POTUS! We survived the first Ron Paul lost fine. The second was more painful, mainly because at one point we saw a way to win, but we could hang in their. Had Rand lost and some democrat or some other neocon that we all uniformly despised had one, that would not have divided us the way a Trump victory did. Anyone with "an IQ two or three standard deviations beyond the threshold" indeed should know better. Trump/anti-Trump is the single most divisive fault line on the forums these days. The 9/11 Truther Wars are basically over. (Trump himself said that he thought there were bombs in the buildings). I think mods still shunt 9/11 Truth (sometimes) to Hot Topics just because of reflexology and not for any thought out reason. Yeah, there's some vaxxer/anti-vaxxer debates, but they pale in comparison to the Trump/anti Trump debates. And nobody in the 9/11 Truth debates questioned the patriotism of the other side. Mini-Me feels like his side is called "traitor" for not supporting libertarian ideals? Well I see far more of the "traitor" language being thrown about by those who claim we are facing an "invasion." It's ironic that Mini-Me sort of split the difference on the use of the "invasion" wording. (The president shouldn't be able to unilaterally call it an "invasion" but it is kinda sorta an "invasion." The truth is....it's not an invasion. Is it a troubling strategy on the left? Certainly. But there are other ways to deal with it than what Trump and his supporters have proposed so far. I've given my ideas and caught grief from the "Trumpettes" (Mini-Me's word) over it.

    Final thought. These days this forum seems more like a propaganda battlefield over other peoples ideas than a creative space where we come up with our own solutions. I miss the days the biggest threads were arguments over the #RonPaulBlimp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The pathological libertarian cannot tolerate such a collapse of moral universality. "Not even in the face of armageddon. Never compromise," as Rorschach from Watchmen would say regarding a different moral absolute ("evil must be punished"). I have now been a libertarian now for 11.5 years, and my pragmatic self-preservation instincts spend their full-time job holding my moral idealism from the cliffs of insanity. In 2016 it was just a given that nobody could convince me to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump if they had a gun to my head, and I think I meant it literally. I may still feel the same, and this is just a weak no-brainer starting point as far as many libertarians are concerned. Most morally self-conscious people have lines they simply will not cross, but as libertarians ours tend to be far more restrictive, especially in the political sphere.

    The vast majority of the time, our consequentialist viewpoints merely reinforce our moral certitude. After all, a society that broadly adopted libertarian deontological ethics would maximize real-world utility in a way that a cacophany of 300 million screeching utilitarian voices simply never could. (They would disagree, but that's beside the point.) Directly pursuing utilitarianism generally just leads to a chaotic war of all against all, because everyone has different utility functions, most are poorly calibrated, and most are more instrumentally rational than epistemically rational to begin with (that is, most people are both short-sighted and self-centered). Libertarians are often criticized for sharing utopian thinking with communists, but this is a misconception: Unlike the ever-tweaking utopian statists, our general viewpoint is more that principled libertarian solutions are "as close" to a panacea for most socioeconomic problems as a succinct set of rules could ever get, where all but the most exceptional deviations would cause more problems than they solve. In other words, we don't want to undermine a system that works in 99% of cases to accommodate the exceptional 1% cases. We're willing to leave those to chance or charity or even accept a 1% failure rate, rather than risk tearing everything down in pursuit of that utopian 100%.

    In general, our economic and social views align so nicely with our deontological ethics that we rarely have to question whether the non-aggression principle should be our categorical imperative, or if we care more about real-world outcomes. It rarely matters whether we rejected the gun in the room before or after we built our mental model of consequences; they have become deeply intertwined. We have to examine which one is more important so infrequently that I think most of us eventually subconsciously convince ourselves that no exceptional situations even exist. It's a comforting thought. We all recognize that any state action disturbs whatever the nonviolent path of least resistance would have been, and the effect generally (always?) has negative consequences that exceed the benefit and necessitate further tweaking to mitigate. Sometimes this opens the door to possible nightmare futures, like the idea of Trump's wall being used to keep us in, as the Berlin Wall was used to keep East Germans under Communist control. Why bother quantifying this risk next to the cultural and political risks of uncontrolled or excessive immigration? If we turn our moral principles into absolutes we'll at least dodge the risk of corruption, and we can always find consequentialist rationalizations that assure us uncontrolled immigration is more of an economic benefit than a political danger.

    It is in this way, that we become deeply pathological and, I think, a danger to ourselves. In my heart of hearts I want to be an anarchist, but I've never been able to convince myself that such a system would be predictably stable and avoid catastrophic perverse incentives in practice. Neither have I been able to convince myself that I shouldn't care about the consequences anyway on moral grounds, because unconditionally upholding the NAP is the greatest possible moral good. It seems my commitment to deontological ethics is not absolute, or perhaps, that I have misidentified the precise deontological principles that should be my true categorical imperative. Maybe the NAP is a crude first-order approximation of a more accurate and nuanced universal moral principle, which takes a broader view of self-defense than I can narrowly articulate. I'd imagine that true moral principles are what they are, regardless of how easy or difficult it might be to twist their linguistic expression into a dangerously contradictory meaning. Universal laws are normally parsimonious, but on occasion they take labrynthine twists.

    In any case, I never never been able to convince myself that American culture can survive uncontrolled immigration, or that the future of liberty can survive the death of American culture, or that such an outcome is acceptable. I believe the immigration issue is an actual exception where strict adherence to the NAP is at stark odds with our goal to see real-world outcomes produce more liberty. ("GASP! TRAITOR!")

    The biggest reason has little to do with economics and everything to do with American culture and politics. Culture matters, and as Sarah Hoyt (a conservative blogger I mostly enjoy) argues here, it is more than tasty food, fancy attire, and festival days. Those are just the superficial elements. The core of culture, which multiculturalist indoctrination has always obscured (on purpose I believe), encapsulates our deeply ingrained attitudes about how human beings should interact with each other:
    • The structure of government, role of executive power, role of the legislature, principles of jurisprudence and common law, etc.
    • The role of government in society
    • The role of religion in government, and vice versa
    • The acceptable uses of violence or coercion to enforce social or economic norms
    • The definition and role of property in society
    • The rights of individuals and their responsibilities to each other, their communities, and their countries
    • Views on education, language, fatherhood, motherhood, and family, and on what the culture should encourage and discourage
    • Views on how to handle disagreement, offensive or hurtful speech, etc.
    • Morality: What is a virtue, and what is a vice? How should morality be enforced?


    The power elite understand this in a way most of their followers do not: Culture matters, and they have worked long and hard to make Americans forget ours, so they could supplant it. How many times have you heard a leftist repeat the clueless sentiment, "America has no real culture, unlike all the other countries?" It becomes more true every day as we become more polarized and divided, but it was never true in the way they speak it. America has its skeletons, and it has become frighteningly corrupt and imperialistic, but what legitimate success it did attain -- greater than probably any other country in history -- it attained as a function of culture, most of it good. Our culture is not McDonald's, barbecue, and American football. The British common law system, Enlightenment ideals of individual rights and property ownership, Protestant work ethic, entrepreneurial spirit, and rugged individualism formed the backbone of the culture that built this country. The flame of liberty still survives in the remnant, but its ideological enemies are trying to extinguish it using every means at their disposal, and the immigration system is on the list.

    Culture is not a hat that a person can swap on a whim. It forms the basis of a person's worldview, and how they interact with the world around them. If a handful of open-minded immigrants from a radically different and incompatible culture move to America to seek a better life, their cultural immersion will make them Americans before long. They won't just see that we live better than people in the countries they came from. They will see WHY. As they assimilate, they will come to understand our success as the direct consequence of our cultural differences (petrodollar hegemony notwithstanding), and they will gradually adopt our ways of thinking. However, if an enormous number of immigrants from a radically different and incompatible culture move to America to seek a better life, they will remain too segregated to assimilate. Instead of adopting traditional American values, they may see our success as mere turn of fate, and try to "culturally enrich" us with the sociopolitical attitudes that dominated their countries of origin. Worse, confronted with the leftist ideology that our success came from "stealing their resources," many will see no reason to adopt our culture or become American. Instead, they may instead agitate to "reclaim" what they're told was theirs, as "La Raza" -- "The Race" -- they will try to "reclaim" what they're told was theirs. Aztlan indeed.

    Sure, the Cloward-Piven strategy to overburden the welfare state with immigrants is also at play, and the open borders libertarians have a valid point that it wouldn't be a problem if we simply eliminated welfare. That's all well and good, but that's a GOAL, not a strategy. The question is, how do we actually get there? We can't just snap our fingers and do it! Ron Paul supporters have been trying for 12 (or 30 in some cases), and libertarians in general have been trying for decades longer than that. In all that time, we've consistently lost more ground than we've gained. The key point to understand here is simple:

    We are running out of time.

    We don't have another 47 years to waste sparring each other as the Libertarian Party has done. We may not even have another 12 years to waste, as we here on this site have done, before it's too late. It may already be too late; many of us here argued the same a decade ago. What I think many people fail to understand is that it's not just going to be too late for the US government to turn around. It's going to be too late for American culture to survive, and if American culture dies, so does every link the average person has had or will ever have, to libertarianism or even liberty in general. If you think the gulf between you and the average American is too wide to bridge today, you have no idea how bad it could get.

    Too many on the left are indoctrinated with Cultural Marxism, call-out culture, identity politics, and the virtue of dogpiling and personally destroying anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest. Too many on the right are indoctrinated with neoconservative imperialism. As grassroots conservatives and Trump supporters are mercilessly evicted from the public square by identitarian obsessives, they are becoming vulnerable to fascist and white nationalist extremes in their desperation to stop the next Bolshevik revolution.

    At this point, spreading the light of pure libertarianism to the average American is already like proselytizing for a strange alien religion with orange and blue morality in an unknown and unpleasant-sounding language, with vaguely threatening hand gestures. Our education strategy thus far has been, "Let's start with Libertarianism 710 with Ron Paul and proceed to Libertarianism 896 with Walter Block." Our audience is not remotely ready for that yet. We need to focus on the preschool basics here like "Stop stabbing each other with scissors," because that's where everywhere else is at. We cannot achieve a future of liberty without first restoring or reinvigorating latent respect for American culture, and our window of opportunity grows shorter every day, and with every migrant caravan.

    Traditional American principles lose more mindshare every year, and a significant contributor includes immigration from culturally opposed countries at a rate that exceeds our ability to culturally assimilate the immigrants. Many on this forum seem to argue, "Our fellow Americans are doing plenty well throwing away their own culture anyway." That may be true, but this is an obfuscating rationalization for inaction, not a mitigating factor. Bringing up a second problem does not make the first one go away. Both problems reinforce each other.

    If we want any hope at all, we need to buy time. We need to buy time!

    I constantly read posts from fellow libertarians CaptUSA, acptulsa, Ender, PAF, SuperfluousMan, etc. scolding the libertarian-leaning conservatives like Swordsmyth and kahless about how the CORRECT approach is to "Just eliminate the welfare system." OH, WOW, WHAT AN INSIGHT! We could just eliminate the welfare system, and it won't be overburdened anymore! Holy cow, why didn't I think of that sooner? It's not like we've been trying to do that already for decades with only negative results to show for it, right?

    As I said above, eliminating welfare is a goal, a destination, not a strategy. If we could do that, we'd have already won. That's probably the absolute last pillar of runaway statism that will ever fall, so how do we expect to get there? It's not even a "Plan A," and if our actual "Plan A" is "Just educate people," we've been doing that one long enough to estimate its time to success as well: At the current rate it will take roughly infinite eons, although I suppose we could more precisely describe it with a negative number of years that represents our opposite-pointing velocity vector.

    Lately it feels like we're all on a ship headed for Liberty Island. We've been pointing our sails toward Liberty Island for literally decades, but it's still nowhere in sight, and all of the navigational signs indicate the wind has been pushing us backwards for quite some time. We're probably leagues farther from our destination than we started. Meanwhile, the creaky wooden ship is riddled with holes, and it's taking on water fast. Some of the uncultured pirates aboard start saying,

    "Hey, there's a hole, and we're taking on water! Help me plug this up!"

    Our more astute philosophers say,

    "Wait! Don't touch it! You might make it worse! Just...just...just go to Liberty Island instead! That's what we need to focus on, going to Liberty Island. Just go there! That's the solution to our problem."

    The pirates shout, panicked, "But no, seriously! We are going backwards and taking on water! There's no telling how long it will take to get to Liberty Island, but I can guarantee we'd all be dead before we get there if we don't stop the flooding! Why don't you help me plug up this hole?"

    The great philosophers reply in their wisdom, "What's the point in plugging that hole? There are plenty of other holes anyway. Put that hammer down before you hurt yourself, and let's just go to Liberty Island instead!"

    If "just educate people" is our "Plan A," and it appears like it will take literally forever, it seems like we have no choice but to support some "Plan B" which will help buy us more time (hopefully a lot). That's especially true when the bigger problem involves the culture shifting away from us in the first place. Slowing or stopping the deliberate dilution of American culture via heterodox immigration would give us at least a little bit of the breathing room we need, and we need every bit of it that we can get.

    As it stands, any kind of border control requires one or both of these two things:
    1. Establish and maintain control of border ingress (if not egress)
    2. Deport illegal aliens already in the United States


    Of the two options, method '1' is far superior. Deportations are horribly inhumane practices that destroy people's lives, and they provide a continued pretext for an ever-increasing police state and surveillance dragnet, combined with an enormous budget for the predictably ineffective results. No, thank you.

    In contrast, tightening the border via almost any mechanism (wall, alert sensors, minutemen...) is far more humane, and putting a moratorium on unskilled immigration wouldn't hurt. Side note: Like virtually everyone else here, I vehemently oppose the 100 mile Constitution-free zone, etc. Acting as though reluctant border control supporters on Ron Paul Forums believe in a total police state is shamefully disingenuous. (If you dare accuse me of this, I will tell your mother, and you will be in so much trouble.)

    As it stands, the conservatives and Trumpettes have presented us with a possible "Plan B" that could buy us more time. They're advocating for a wall, which is arguably the worst version of approach '1'. They've even already backed themselves into a corner where the stupid thing will only cover a fraction of the border and still costs $5 billion. As inane as that may sound, guess what? It still has far more traction than virtually anything we've ever done. I'm not going to lie here. I'm ambivalent about the wall. I'm willing to grudgingly accept it for the hope of a good outcome, but I don't want to want it, and I think the concerns that it could eventually be used to keep us in are valid. However, what other viable short/medium-term option do we have that doesn't involve continuing to drive off the same cliff?

    The United States is likely the world's last stand for liberty. Either we revive American culture, or libertarianism dies with it. We don't have the option to enact our magic libertarian dream plan either. That's not in the cards for us any time soon, because we're only bit players. That means we can either form a coalition with the [ostensibly] ruling party on an issue of potential joint interest, or we can pound sand and continue helplessly dying in our armchair perfectionist irrelevance. Those are our options this year, as I see it.

    If we support the wall as a dirty strategic compromise (by itself, without additional police state boondoggles attached), it might help us buy some of the time we need to turn things around. Our support might also be used to get a last-minute version with all sorts of horrifying extras attached as well. It could also just be immediately used to keep us in, and never benefit us one bit. Those are the risks we'd take by supporting it. They're terrible, but the option also provides a glimmer of hope that our time horizon may grow substantially. The alternative to taking a risk is to continue on the same path with the certainty that we'll go where we've been going.

    My idealistic side desperately wants to believe that principled libertarian advocacy alone will save us, but I don't see a viable strategy at this late stage, and at the end of the day, I want to live. I did not sign up for a suicide pact. I want my unborn children to grow up in a world where some Enlightenment-inspired civilization still exists, however imperfect it may be. Unless someone can suggest an actual alternative (and mutually exclusive) strategy that is within our power to realistically get us to Liberty Island alive in our allotted time under our present constraints, or that will buy us more time than the dunderheaded conservatives' idea, I have to side with the conservatives on the wall, notwithstanding my caveats.* I'll take that over impotently walking off into the ocean in despair, paralyzed by the NAP.

    *Caveat: For the record, I do agree with Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Andrew Napolitano on the specific topic of this thread (though not always as strongly): Unilaterally declaring a national emergency over the border situation appears to be an unconstitutional executive overreach at this point, regardless of my views on the wall itself. johnwk has made a rather admirable effort trying to justify it in terms of the actual law, but the stretches of reasoning involved seem to go into "living document" territory where I dare not tread.

    Even the federal power for Congress to control immigration itself rests on Constitutionally shaky ground. It seems to be a reasonable joint interpretation of the Commerce Clause, "repel invasions" clause, and "necessary and proper" clause, at least in such a manner that a wall along any state's border (for instance) could be construed as a reasonable exercise, given the appropriate magic words describing a congruent purpose. However, the wording does not explicitly encapsulate immigration. It's possible the power rightfully belongs to the states (and half-jokingly, perhaps the power of deportation from Texas to California still does), as it did in practice prior to the Page Act of 1875. Still, the Commerce Clause could have always interfered with the states in theory, and the Page Act made it a federal playground in practice anyway, for good or ill. At this point only strict constructionists would ever attack the Constitutionality of federal immigration control in good faith (even if leftists might attack it in bad faith, while interpreting the Constitution loosely everywhere else), so it is more the executive overreach that should concern us as a serious problem.

    The left, neoconservatives, and power elite routinely act on larger leaps, but our joint cause uniquely rejects that "might makes right" opportunism as a selling point. Sinking to the same level of lawlessness would therefore uniquely delegitimize that cause. No good-faith independent observer outside our libertarian sphere would ever predicate their respect and attention on our rigidly pure adherence to a deontological libertarian ideology that's alien to them to begin with, but we must at least respect the rule of law to effectively demonstrate moral superiority over arbitrary statism.

    Everyone here understands that we cannot permit a judge in North Carolina to invalidate voter-ratified Constitutional Amendments (or 18 months of legislation) for the entirely subjective rationale that a gerrymandered and therefore "invalid" legislature provided voters the option. For a similar reason, we cannot permit a President to subjectively redefine the contractual use of "invasion" in the Constitution to mean anything other than the plain meaning of the words to the two signing parties as the time of ratification.

    That is not to say Trump is strictly wrong to call it an invasion though: The leaders of the left are indeed systematically encouraging an excessive amount of immigration, on purpose, to reshape politics by transforming the country's demographics. This also ties in with the Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming taxpayer funded safety nets to foment socialist agitation, but I believe that is secondary. Either way, I'd colloquially call it a treason-assisted invasion in principle, if not according to the precise meanings of the words as understood by those who ratified the Constitution. The precise legalities must matter here though, because if they don't matter to us, they may never again matter to anyone...maybe for hundreds of years, or maybe forever.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I just now saw this. My response. I hope @Mini-Me and @Swordsmyth will read it.

    This is the first (and IMO most important) point to make. Just because someone disagrees with your solution doesn't mean they don't think there is a problem worth addressing. That is the position that those pushing for government takeover of healthcare take. You don't support their ideas on healthcare? You must just want people to die! They falsely claim that you don't have any proposals of your own to put forward, or if you do they are "bad" somehow. The CEO of Whole Foods put forward a free market proposal on healthcare prior to the passage of the so called "Affordable Care Act" and for his troubles he was attacked and a boycott against Whole Foods was organized. (One of those attacking the Whole Foods CEO was Max Keiser who is often on the Alex Jones show. He called for the boycott on AJ's show and AJ didn't bust him for it. Needless to say I was sorely disappointed with Alex Jones that day.)

    Mini-Me makes several points that I'd like to address. My thoughts in italics.

    1) American culture is in decline.



    Well....duh!

    2) This decline is connected to mass immigration.

    Ummmm....I don't think so. Hollywood is not run by first generation immigrants. Neither is the music industry. Neither is the television industry. Probably the recent movie that expressed the value of hard work and free enterprise the most is "Crazy Rich Asians" which was written by, directed by, and mostly starred....Asians. You can't say who's really behind the decline of culture in America because that will get you banned. Just blame it on the immigrants. They are a safer target.

    3) The left wants immigration for a permanent democratic majority.



    This is a self fulfilling prophecy. There is "blowback" coming from hardline immigration policy itself. Back in 1992 a solid majority of Asians self identified as republicans. Now a bigger majority self identify as democrats. Now the lie some on the right keep telling themselves is "Well it's not our fault. They would just be leaning democrat because they don't love freedom!" That's like saying it's not the fault of U.S. foreign policy that there has been a sharp increase in Muslim hatred of the United States since we started interfering in their affairs. The truth is that Asians have a higher median income than even white people. That means they have a higher incentive to want lower taxes. So why go democrat? Self interest. Nobody on the right begrudges white people for acting in self interest. This is no different. H1B visas are in the interest of Asian Americans. And they will stomach some higher taxes in exchange for more of their family members who have a high skill set to be able to come to the United States. You could get Asians to go along with reducing or even stopping low skilled immigration if you gave ground on high skilled immigration.

    4) The wall won't actually accomplish much (if anything)....but we need it because it will do something and there are no good alternatives.



    Seriously, nobody has articulated what the wall is supposed to actually do. Mini-Me admits that even at $5 billion, it will only cover fraction (his words, not mine) of the border. And that doesn't even address the fact that under current law, if you are an asylum seeker who has made it to the Mexico side of the wall, border patrol has to let you apply for asylum because the "Mexican side" is still U.S. soil. And there are viable alternatives that would actually do more good. One example would use $5 billion to hire immigration judges and staff immigration courts. I will give some more alternatives further down in my response.

    5) Sure this is unconstitutional...but...



    Mini-Me conceded that the use of executive power was overreach by Trump. So...we're supposed to go with unconstitutional overreach for something that the side that's arguing for it can't articulate what it will accomplish because.......? Mini-Me also conceded that the border wall could become like the Berlin wall. But I shouldn't be worried about this because.....?

    6) We should support the wall as a "dirty compromise" as long as the "police state boondoggles" aren't included.



    But they will be included. Trump already put face scanning cameras at airports by executive order. Crickets from the "immigration is a national emergency" crowd.

    7) Don't accuse us of supporting the 100 mile constitution free zone because we don't.



    Whether you support it or not, it exists. Most of the proposals Trump has put forward, including the wall, expand the police state.

    8) Getting rid of the welfare state is great but just not possible.



    That doesn't mean you don't try. If Trump had shut down the government over passage of a law cutting welfare to illegal immigrants it would have totally changed the nature of the debate. For those same 12 or so years, people have been trying to build a border wall. Trump finally admitted it's not possible to build a wall across the entire border. So...why are some of us focusing on a border wall to the exclusion of all other options?

    Also that's not the only non police state proposal out there. For example, my proposal to help Mexico build a wall on its southern border. We already send Mexico billions in aid to fight the phony drug war! That aid could be re-purposed to fund building a wall on Mexico's southern border. It's much shorter than the U.S. border which means that a wall on Mexico's southern border could be completed for a fraction of the cost. There's also no constitutional problem like the one Mini-Me admitted there is with the Trump emergency declaration for a border wall.


    9) There are good and bad people on both sides...let's all get along.



    Well I appreciate that Mini-Me recognizes I feel mis-understood. I did and I do. I also myself cannot understand why unconstitutional proposals like using emergency powers to build a wall that the other side has to admit won't accomplish what they want it to accomplish are treated by some as sacred cows, but constitutionally defensible proposals like using the foreign aid we already send to Mexico to help them build a wall on their southern border get met with so much vitriol. Again this reminds me of the Affordable Care Act. If you oppose it, you want poor sick people to die. If you come up with alternatives....you are attacked for your alternatives.

    10) The reason not so many people come here anymore has nothing to do with the infighting.



    I can speak only for myself. Sometimes it is weary posting here and it's not just because Rand isn't about to be POTUS! We survived the first Ron Paul lost fine. The second was more painful, mainly because at one point we saw a way to win, but we could hang in their. Had Rand lost and some democrat or some other neocon that we all uniformly despised had one, that would not have divided us the way a Trump victory did. Anyone with "an IQ two or three standard deviations beyond the threshold" indeed should know better. Trump/anti-Trump is the single most divisive fault line on the forums these days. The 9/11 Truther Wars are basically over. (Trump himself said that he thought there were bombs in the buildings). I think mods still shunt 9/11 Truth (sometimes) to Hot Topics just because of reflexology and not for any thought out reason. Yeah, there's some vaxxer/anti-vaxxer debates, but they pale in comparison to the Trump/anti Trump debates. And nobody in the 9/11 Truth debates questioned the patriotism of the other side. Mini-Me feels like his side is called "traitor" for not supporting libertarian ideals? Well I see far more of the "traitor" language being thrown about by those who claim we are facing an "invasion." It's ironic that Mini-Me sort of split the difference on the use of the "invasion" wording. (The president shouldn't be able to unilaterally call it an "invasion" but it is kinda sorta an "invasion." The truth is....it's not an invasion. Is it a troubling strategy on the left? Certainly. But there are other ways to deal with it than what Trump and his supporters have proposed so far. I've given my ideas and caught grief from the "Trumpettes" (Mini-Me's word) over it.

    Final thought. These days this forum seems more like a propaganda battlefield over other peoples ideas than a creative space where we come up with our own solutions. I miss the days the biggest threads were arguments over the #RonPaulBlimp.
    Yep.

    "Stopping entitlements is "too hard!"- you're just a purist if you think that's feasible. A wall is so much easier- bad immigrants are changing "ma cultah!"

    It's not immigrants who brought the FED into being, the world wars, the loss of free trade, the expectation of free stuff.

    Everybody is stuck in The Matrix and wants to stay there because they have no idea that they are already in a prison- in fact many want to increase the prison they live in because real freedom is just so hard and anti-Murican.
    There is no spoon.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I just now saw this. My response. I hope @Mini-Me and @Swordsmyth will read it.

    This is the first (and IMO most important) point to make. Just because someone disagrees with your solution doesn't mean they don't think there is a problem worth addressing. That is the position that those pushing for government takeover of healthcare take. You don't support their ideas on healthcare? You must just want people to die! They falsely claim that you don't have any proposals of your own to put forward, or if you do they are "bad" somehow. The CEO of Whole Foods put forward a free market proposal on healthcare prior to the passage of the so called "Affordable Care Act" and for his troubles he was attacked and a boycott against Whole Foods was organized. (One of those attacking the Whole Foods CEO was Max Keiser who is often on the Alex Jones show. He called for the boycott on AJ's show and AJ didn't bust him for it. Needless to say I was sorely disappointed with Alex Jones that day.)

    Mini-Me makes several points that I'd like to address. My thoughts in italics.

    1) American culture is in decline.



    Well....duh!

    2) This decline is connected to mass immigration.

    Ummmm....I don't think so. Hollywood is not run by first generation immigrants. Neither is the music industry. Neither is the television industry. Probably the recent movie that expressed the value of hard work and free enterprise the most is "Crazy Rich Asians" which was written by, directed by, and mostly starred....Asians. You can't say who's really behind the decline of culture in America because that will get you banned. Just blame it on the immigrants. They are a safer target.
    Just because Americans and a certain group contribute to the problem is no reason to allow millions of foreigners to come and make it worse.
    And many of those responsible are here as the result of previous excessive immigration from anti-liberty cultures.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    3) The left wants immigration for a permanent democratic majority.



    This is a self fulfilling prophecy. There is "blowback" coming from hardline immigration policy itself. Back in 1992 a solid majority of Asians self identified as republicans. Now a bigger majority self identify as democrats. Now the lie some on the right keep telling themselves is "Well it's not our fault. They would just be leaning democrat because they don't love freedom!" That's like saying it's not the fault of U.S. foreign policy that there has been a sharp increase in Muslim hatred of the United States since we started interfering in their affairs. The truth is that Asians have a higher median income than even white people. That means they have a higher incentive to want lower taxes. So why go democrat? Self interest. Nobody on the right begrudges white people for acting in self interest. This is no different. H1B visas are in the interest of Asian Americans. And they will stomach some higher taxes in exchange for more of their family members who have a high skill set to be able to come to the United States. You could get Asians to go along with reducing or even stopping low skilled immigration if you gave ground on high skilled immigration.
    It is not a self-fulfilling prophecy not all immigrants are the same and the Republican party has been becoming more conservative while the Demoncrats have been running left and offering ever more free stuff.
    The immigrants of various cultures started voting anti-liberty before Republicans turned against them, that is why Republicans turned against them.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    4) The wall won't actually accomplish much (if anything)....but we need it because it will do something and there are no good alternatives.



    Seriously, nobody has articulated what the wall is supposed to actually do. Mini-Me admits that even at $5 billion, it will only cover fraction (his words, not mine) of the border. And that doesn't even address the fact that under current law, if you are an asylum seeker who has made it to the Mexico side of the wall, border patrol has to let you apply for asylum because the "Mexican side" is still U.S. soil. And there are viable alternatives that would actually do more good. One example would use $5 billion to hire immigration judges and staff immigration courts. I will give some more alternatives further down in my response.
    The wall is a force multiplier that will make the Border Patrol more effective with every mile of it that is completed, I support any superior options but the wall is better than nothing

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    5) Sure this is unconstitutional...but...



    Mini-Me conceded that the use of executive power was overreach by Trump. So...we're supposed to go with unconstitutional overreach for something that the side that's arguing for it can't articulate what it will accomplish because.......? Mini-Me also conceded that the border wall could become like the Berlin wall. But I shouldn't be worried about this because.....?
    It's not unconstitutional, I have argued that point in other threads so I'm not going to waste the time here.
    If the wall isn't going to keep the invaders out then how can you say it will keep us in? You anti-wall people need to get your story straight.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    6) We should support the wall as a "dirty compromise" as long as the "police state boondoggles" aren't included.



    But they will be included. Trump already put face scanning cameras at airports by executive order. Crickets from the "immigration is a national emergency" crowd.
    The two do not have to go together and without some kind of border security like the wall the pressure for the police state measures grows stronger.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    7) Don't accuse us of supporting the 100 mile constitution free zone because we don't.



    Whether you support it or not, it exists. Most of the proposals Trump has put forward, including the wall, expand the police state.
    The wall doesn't expand the police state and without immigration control and border security the pressure for the police state measures grows stronger.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    8) Getting rid of the welfare state is great but just not possible.



    That doesn't mean you don't try. If Trump had shut down the government over passage of a law cutting welfare to illegal immigrants it would have totally changed the nature of the debate. For those same 12 or so years, people have been trying to build a border wall. Trump finally admitted it's not possible to build a wall across the entire border. So...why are some of us focusing on a border wall to the exclusion of all other options?
    Who said we don't want to try?
    We are not focussing on a border wall to the exclusion of all other options and neither is Trump
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Also that's not the only non police state proposal out there. For example, my proposal to help Mexico build a wall on its southern border. We already send Mexico billions in aid to fight the phony drug war! That aid could be re-purposed to fund building a wall on Mexico's southern border. It's much shorter than the U.S. border which means that a wall on Mexico's southern border could be completed for a fraction of the cost. There's also no constitutional problem like the one Mini-Me admitted there is with the Trump emergency declaration for a border wall.
    Trump is already pressuring Mexico to secure its border and to crack down on the invasion but Mexico could always throw open their gates and go back to aiding the invasion.
    We can't be entirely dependent on another country for our border security.
    And the wall funding isn't unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    9) There are good and bad people on both sides...let's all get along.



    Well I appreciate that Mini-Me recognizes I feel mis-understood. I did and I do. I also myself cannot understand why unconstitutional proposals like using emergency powers to build a wall that the other side has to admit won't accomplish what they want it to accomplish are treated by some as sacred cows, but constitutionally defensible proposals like using the foreign aid we already send to Mexico to help them build a wall on their southern border get met with so much vitriol. Again this reminds me of the Affordable Care Act. If you oppose it, you want poor sick people to die. If you come up with alternatives....you are attacked for your alternatives.
    That's not all you proposed, you proposed that America occupy Mexico and the central American countries and engage in "nation building" to stop the invasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    10) The reason not so many people come here anymore has nothing to do with the infighting.



    I can speak only for myself. Sometimes it is weary posting here and it's not just because Rand isn't about to be POTUS! We survived the first Ron Paul lost fine. The second was more painful, mainly because at one point we saw a way to win, but we could hang in their. Had Rand lost and some democrat or some other neocon that we all uniformly despised had one, that would not have divided us the way a Trump victory did. Anyone with "an IQ two or three standard deviations beyond the threshold" indeed should know better. Trump/anti-Trump is the single most divisive fault line on the forums these days. The 9/11 Truther Wars are basically over. (Trump himself said that he thought there were bombs in the buildings). I think mods still shunt 9/11 Truth (sometimes) to Hot Topics just because of reflexology and not for any thought out reason. Yeah, there's some vaxxer/anti-vaxxer debates, but they pale in comparison to the Trump/anti Trump debates. And nobody in the 9/11 Truth debates questioned the patriotism of the other side. Mini-Me feels like his side is called "traitor" for not supporting libertarian ideals? Well I see far more of the "traitor" language being thrown about by those who claim we are facing an "invasion." It's ironic that Mini-Me sort of split the difference on the use of the "invasion" wording. (The president shouldn't be able to unilaterally call it an "invasion" but it is kinda sorta an "invasion." The truth is....it's not an invasion. Is it a troubling strategy on the left? Certainly. But there are other ways to deal with it than what Trump and his supporters have proposed so far. I've given my ideas and caught grief from the "Trumpettes" (Mini-Me's word) over it.

    Final thought. These days this forum seems more like a propaganda battlefield over other peoples ideas than a creative space where we come up with our own solutions. I miss the days the biggest threads were arguments over the #RonPaulBlimp.
    It is an invasion and the anti-Trump side is AT LEAST an equal partner in the in-fighting, say anything good about Trump and you are treated as a a NAZI and called one along with every other insult they can think of.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Yep.

    "Stopping entitlements is "too hard!"- you're just a purist if you think that's feasible.
    Everyone here wants to stop entitlements but that wouldn't solve the problem if we succeeded. (do they come here to work and don't get welfare or will ending welfare solve the problem entirely?).
    And the invaders will make it totally impossible and previous waves of immigrants helped to impose them when they didn't exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    A wall is so much easier-
    The wall is happening, that would seem to be absolute proof that it is easier than ending welfare.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    bad immigrants are changing "ma cultah!"

    It's not immigrants who brought the FED into being, the world wars, the loss of free trade, the expectation of free stuff.
    Previous waves of immigrants did make the difference in those things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Everybody is stuck in The Matrix and wants to stay there because they have no idea that they are already in a prison- in fact many want to increase the prison they live in because real freedom is just so hard and anti-Murican.
    And some of you want to allow in millions of people who will turn us into Communist China or the USSR.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #19
    I think we're already out of time.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Just because Americans and a certain group contribute to the problem is no reason to allow millions of foreigners to come and make it worse.
    ^That statement doesn't address a single thing I said because I never said anything about allowing 1 foreigner in let alone millions. All I have addressed is proposed methods for curbing immigration.

    And many of those responsible are here as the result of previous excessive immigration from anti-liberty cultures.
    Who did not immigrate from an anti-liberty culture?

    It is not a self-fulfilling prophecy not all immigrants are the same and the Republican party has been becoming more conservative while the Demoncrats have been running left and offering ever more free stuff.
    The immigrants of various cultures started voting anti-liberty before Republicans turned against them, that is why Republicans turned against them.
    That's not what the data shows. George H. W. Bush started tightening up on H1B visas in 1990. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_v...on_Act_of_1990) And that's when you start seeing the precipitous drop of support for Republicans among Asians. I know that doesn't fit your worldview but it's the truth.

    The wall is a force multiplier that will make the Border Patrol more effective with every mile of it that is completed, I support any superior options but the wall is better than nothing
    So am I allowed to say now that you support the wall? Because that's really been hard for me to come up with. That said, if the border patrol has to bring across asylum seekers who get to the Mexican side of the wall because they are on U.S. soil then that's not much of a force wall if at all. Taking that same money and hiring immigration judges actually would be a force mulitplier.


    It's not unconstitutional, I have argued that point in other threads so I'm not going to waste the time here.
    I was addressing what Mini-Me said and he conceded that it was unconstitutional. I already know that you disagree with that position.

    The two do not have to go together and without some kind of border security like the wall the pressure for the police state measures grows stronger.
    They might not have to go together....but they are. That's just the facts on the ground.

    The wall doesn't expand the police state and without immigration control and border security the pressure for the police state measures grows stronger.
    Face scanning cameras on the wall expand the police state.

    Who said we don't want to try?
    We are not focussing on a border wall to the exclusion of all other options and neither is Trump
    Trump is already pressuring Mexico to secure its border and to crack down on the invasion but Mexico could always throw open their gates and go back to aiding the invasion.
    We can't be entirely dependent on another country for our border security.
    Who said anything about being entirely dependent on another country for border security? I certainly didn't. Straw man argument.

    And the wall funding isn't unconstitutional
    If congress passed a law, which it didn't, it certainly would be constitutional. Again, I was responding to Mini-Me who conceded the emergency power as unconstitutional.

    That's not all you proposed, you proposed that America occupy Mexico and the central American countries and engage in "nation building" to stop the invasion.
    Sorry, but you are not telling the truth. I didn't say anything about "occupying" Mexico or "nation building." You and your cronies misrepresented my position then and you're doing the same now. We didn't "occupy" Great Britain when we sent forces there to help them repel Nazi aggression. And you and your cronies called my suggestion of helping Mexico build a wall "nation building" but now you are lying and saying that's not what I proposed. We have advisers in Mexico to help with the drug war. Trump says the wall is needed to stop the flow of drugs. So...build it on Mexico's southern border. Re-purpose the money and manpower already being spent in Mexico for something useful.

    It is an invasion and the anti-Trump side is AT LEAST an equal partner in the in-fighting, say anything good about Trump and you are treated as a a NAZI and called one along with every other insult they can think of.
    Mini-Me kinda/sorta disagreed with the invasion language and kinda/sorta agreed with it. I was responding to him. That said, say anything bad about Trump and you are treated as a NAZI and called one along with every other insult they can think of. Seriously the insults go both ways.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Who did not immigrate from an anti-liberty culture?
    The farther back you go in history the better certain cultures were, the original colonists had one of the most liberty oriented cultures that ever existed.
    I am NOT against all immigration but some cultures are more liberty oriented than others and we should weight our quotas in favor of the better ones and we must limit the total allowed so that the newcomers don't overwhelm the native culture and extinguish liberty.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    That's not what the data shows. George H. W. Bush started tightening up on H1B visas in 1990. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_v...on_Act_of_1990) And that's when you start seeing the precipitous drop of support for Republicans among Asians. I know that doesn't fit your worldview but it's the truth.
    Asians are not the only immigrants and if they vote anti-liberty just because we don't want to import as many of them then they aren't very liberty oriented.
    That sounds like blackmail and an invasion to me.
    Cutting back on H1Bs is a perfectly legitimate policy option that is not inherently "anti-immigrant" and if immigrants vote anti-liberty because of it then is it any wonder Republicans soured on the immigrants that voted Demoncrat because of it?


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    So am I allowed to say now that you support the wall? Because that's really been hard for me to come up with.
    My position is exactly what it has always been, if I had the power I would secure the border with increased patrols and reformed laws but if we can't get those right now (or not enough of them) and Trump can build the wall it is better than nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    That said, if the border patrol has to bring across asylum seekers who get to the Mexican side of the wall because they are on U.S. soil then that's not much of a force wall if at all.
    How many arrive at the wall while Border Patrols are not around and have to turn back?
    How many are caught and able to be processed and returned to Mexico while they wait for their asylum claims to be denied instead of making it into the interior undetected?
    It is a big force multiplier.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Taking that same money and hiring immigration judges actually would be a force mulitplier.
    Trump doesn't have the legal authority to take that money for hiring judges and he does have it to build the wall.
    Congress won't give Trump the money for anything that would help.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    They might not have to go together....but they are. That's just the facts on the ground.
    That has nothing to do with the fact that I and others support one and not the other or that without the security the pressure and excuse for the police state will continue to grow.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Face scanning cameras on the wall expand the police state.
    See above.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Who said anything about being entirely dependent on another country for border security? I certainly didn't. Straw man argument.
    Then you support physically securing our borders?



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    If congress passed a law, which it didn't, it certainly would be constitutional. Again, I was responding to Mini-Me who conceded the emergency power as unconstitutional.
    It did pass a law.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Sorry, but you are not telling the truth. I didn't say anything about "occupying" Mexico or "nation building." You and your cronies misrepresented my position then and you're doing the same now. We didn't "occupy" Great Britain when we sent forces there to help them repel Nazi aggression. And you and your cronies called my suggestion of helping Mexico build a wall "nation building" but now you are lying and saying that's not what I proposed. We have advisers in Mexico to help with the drug war. Trump says the wall is needed to stop the flow of drugs. So...build it on Mexico's southern border. Re-purpose the money and manpower already being spent in Mexico for something useful.
    I'm not going to argue about that all over again but we need to secure our own borders.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The farther back you go in history the better certain cultures were, the original colonists had one of the most liberty oriented cultures that ever existed.
    I am NOT against all immigration but some cultures are more liberty oriented than others and we should weight our quotas in favor of the better ones and we must limit the total allowed so that the newcomers don't overwhelm the native culture and extinguish liberty.
    So Great Britain was liberty oriented? What was the point of the revolutionary war then?

    Asians are not the only immigrants and if they vote anti-liberty just because we don't want to import as many of them then they aren't very liberty oriented.
    That sounds like blackmail and an invasion to me.
    Cutting back on H1Bs is a perfectly legitimate policy option that is not inherently "anti-immigrant" and if immigrants vote anti-liberty because of it then is it any wonder Republicans soured on the immigrants that voted Demoncrat because of it?
    I didn't say it was legitimate or not legitimate. But the fact is that the Asians changed their voting pattern as a result of actions taken by a republican president that they felt was not in their best interest and not the other way around. In other words, I was right and you were wrong.

    My position is exactly what it has always been, if I had the power I would secure the border with increased patrols and reformed laws but if we can't get those right now (or not enough of them) and Trump can build the wall it is better than nothing.
    Except under current asylum law the wall does absolutely nothing.

    How many arrive at the wall while Border Patrols are not around and have to turn back?
    The border patrol can't turn asylum seekers back once the reach U.S. soil which is on the Mexico side of the border wall.

    But don't take my word for it. Here's senator Lindsey Graham speaking on the issue. While I know you don't like Graham, he has been a solid supporter of Trump on trying to get funding for the border wall.

    https://shareblue.com/lindsey-graham...rder-problems/
    "The only way a wall would fix this problem is to build it in Mexico so they never step a foot in the United States. But once you step one foot in the United States and you claim asylum, we have a major dysfunctional system," Graham whined, complaining that U.S. asylum laws are too generous.

    Current law does allow refugees to seek asylum in the United States and have their claims heard by a court system that decides whether their fears from their home country warrant asylum.

    And a wall wouldn't change that, as many of the immigrants seeking asylum cross the border at points of entry and turn themselves in to authorities to make their asylum claims.


    Let that sink in.

    The only way a wall would fix this problem is to build it in Mexico so they never step a foot in the United States. But once you step one foot in the United States and you claim asylum, we have a major dysfunctional system.

    I'm the only person on this forum (maybe in the United States) who's come up with a proposal of how to build it in Mexico. If you want to block asylum seekers you have to keep them from setting foot on U.S. soil! Outside of that, more judges are needed to process the claims. But instead Trump is focusing on building a wall that even his somewhat honest supporters admit won't work.

    How many are caught and able to be processed and returned to Mexico while they wait for their asylum claims to be denied instead of making it into the interior undetected?
    It doesn't matter. See above.

    It is a big force multiplier.
    No it isn't. See above.

    Trump doesn't have the legal authority to take that money for hiring judges and he does have it to build the wall.
    Congress won't give Trump the money for anything that would help.
    With democrats digging their heels in on wall funding, Trump should have floated a proposal that including no funding for the wall but instead had the same $5 billion for immigration judges and dared Pelosi to go against it. That would have shifted the immigration debate away from an impractical wall to due process. Trump brought up judges later, but only after losing the wall fight.

    That has nothing to do with the fact that I and others support one and not the other or that without the security the pressure and excuse for the police state will continue to grow.
    You support (sometimes...never sure about you on that) a wall that even senate supporters of Trump on immigration admit legally can't do anything about asylum seekers and that Trump has already indicated will include police state measures for reasons unknown. That reminds me of Bob Dole's speech when he voted to authorize the first Gulf War where he said "I hope the president will use this for peace and not war." Yeah right.


    See above.
    Why? You didn't really say anything.

    Then you support physically securing our borders?
    I never said I didn't. I do object to expanding the police state. I won't say "I support a wall even though I know you're going to put face scanning cameras on and I'm against that because....I really hope you don't do that." I think Lindsey Graham is correct in that the only way a wall stops asylum seekers is if it is built in Mexico.


    It did pass a law.
    Yes. It passed a law rejecting Trump's border wall.

    I'm not going to argue about that all over again but we need to secure our own borders.
    The only way to do that is the build the wall in Mexico.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    So Great Britain was liberty oriented? What was the point of the revolutionary war then?
    It was one of the most liberty oriented cultures in Europe, it was considered dangerously so by the other European monarchies and by those British monarchs with tyrannical ambitions, the Magna Carta and English Common Law were the foundation of American liberty philosophy.

    The point of the Revolutionary war was that the English parliament which Americans didn't get to send representatives to arrogated the power to impose legislation and taxes on Americans instead of their colonial parliaments having equal authority under the king in their territory, after throwing off the yoke of the English parliament and the king who supported it our founders attempted to improve on the English system. (although some of them had other ulterior motivations)

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I didn't say it was legitimate or not legitimate. But the fact is that the Asians changed their voting pattern as a result of actions taken by a republican president that they felt was not in their best interest and not the other way around. In other words, I was right and you were wrong.
    No, you said they changed their voting habits because Republicans went "anti-immigrant", Republicans didn't go "anti-immigrant" until the immigrants showed they didn't care about liberty.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Except under current asylum law the wall does absolutely nothing.



    The border patrol can't turn asylum seekers back once the reach U.S. soil which is on the Mexico side of the border wall.

    But don't take my word for it. Here's senator Lindsey Graham speaking on the issue. While I know you don't like Graham, he has been a solid supporter of Trump on trying to get funding for the border wall.

    https://shareblue.com/lindsey-graham...rder-problems/
    "The only way a wall would fix this problem is to build it in Mexico so they never step a foot in the United States. But once you step one foot in the United States and you claim asylum, we have a major dysfunctional system," Graham whined, complaining that U.S. asylum laws are too generous.

    Current law does allow refugees to seek asylum in the United States and have their claims heard by a court system that decides whether their fears from their home country warrant asylum.

    And a wall wouldn't change that, as many of the immigrants seeking asylum cross the border at points of entry and turn themselves in to authorities to make their asylum claims.


    Let that sink in.

    The only way a wall would fix this problem is to build it in Mexico so they never step a foot in the United States. But once you step one foot in the United States and you claim asylum, we have a major dysfunctional system.

    I'm the only person on this forum (maybe in the United States) who's come up with a proposal of how to build it in Mexico. If you want to block asylum seekers you have to keep them from setting foot on U.S. soil! Outside of that, more judges are needed to process the claims. But instead Trump is focusing on building a wall that even his somewhat honest supporters admit won't work.
    I said "How many arrive at the wall while Border Patrols are not around and have to turn back?"


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It doesn't matter. See above.



    No it isn't. See above.
    It does matter, Trump is returning asylum claimants to Mexico and most of them will be denied and never get to enter the US, keeping them from sneaking across and not filing for asylum is a definite benefit that will keep many of them out.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    With democrats digging their heels in on wall funding, Trump should have floated a proposal that including no funding for the wall but instead had the same $5 billion for immigration judges and dared Pelosi to go against it. That would have shifted the immigration debate away from an impractical wall to due process. Trump brought up judges later, but only after losing the wall fight.
    But he is getting money for the wall with the emergency funding Congress gave Presidents and he would never get any money for judges from the Demoncrats.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You support (sometimes...never sure about you on that)
    My position is more nuanced than the word "support" as I have explained.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    a wall that even senate supporters of Trump on immigration admit legally can't do anything about asylum seekers and that Trump has already indicated will include police state measures for reasons unknown. That reminds me of Bob Dole's speech when he voted to authorize the first Gulf War where he said "I hope the president will use this for peace and not war." Yeah right.
    I explained above how the wall helps and I oppose the police state measures so it would be more like voting for enough military funding to defend the US but against the first Gulf War.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Why? You didn't really say anything.
    I said face scanning cameras are a separate issue from the wall.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yes. It passed a law rejecting Trump's border wall.
    It passed a law giving Presidents money for emergencies.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The only way to do that is the build the wall in Mexico.
    That is not the only way.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #24
    A wall would be OK, but I personally would prefer using a combination of drones, land mines, automated sentry guns, and foot patrols
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    We could put the sentry guns on rail tracks that span the entire border, to ensure full coverage and also make the sentry guns themselves a harder target to hit
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    That said, if the border patrol has to bring across asylum seekers who get to the Mexican side of the wall because they are on U.S. soil then that's not much of a force wall if at all.
    If they are standing in the middle of a US mine field, who are they gonna claim asylum to?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No, you said they changed their voting habits because Republicans went "anti-immigrant", Republicans didn't go "anti-immigrant" until the immigrants showed they didn't care about liberty.
    Restricting H1B visas is an anti immigration position whether you are willing to admit that or not.

    I said "How many arrive at the wall while Border Patrols are not around and have to turn back?"
    Zero? If all you have to do to get into the U.S. is camp out at the wall....In fact that has happened. Really you are grasping at straws.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/29/ameri...ing/index.html
    https://www.conservativereview.com/n...behind-fences/

    Seriously, you believe people travel thousands of miles by foot, get to the wall, know that they will be brought across once the U.S. border patrol drives by and just say "Oops! There's been no border patrol for 5 hours. I guess we'll turn around and go back."

    It does matter, Trump is returning asylum claimants to Mexico and most of them will be denied and never get to enter the US, keeping them from sneaking across and not filing for asylum is a definite benefit that will keep many of them out.
    No it doesn't matter. They are brought across the border by border patrol agents. And the immigrants that Trump is deporting are the ones who didn't even bother showing up for their asylum hearings. The next wave won't make that mistake. Again, the most important thing needed is immigration judges.


    But he is getting money for the wall with the emergency funding Congress gave Presidents and he would never get any money for judges from the Demoncrats.
    Not all of it. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/1231151001/

    Regardless, he still could have made the same emergency funding move if he had asked for money for judges and been turned down. And then the Democrats would have had to explain why they say they want to give asylum without funding the asylum process.

    My position is more nuanced than the word "support" as I have explained.
    Whatever dude.

    I explained above how the wall helps and I oppose the police state measures so it would be more like voting for enough military funding to defend the US but against the first Gulf War.
    Except the wall doesn't actually help.


    I said face scanning cameras are a separate issue from the wall.
    Except Trump is using the wall funding to install face scanning cameras on it.


    It passed a law giving Presidents money for emergencies.
    It didn't give Presidents the arbitrary right to declare what is an emergency when congress specifically said something is not an emergency.


    That is not the only way.
    The only way a wall can prevent someone from seeking asylum in the United States is if it prevents them from setting foot on U.S. soil.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    We could put the sentry guns on rail tracks that span the entire border, to ensure full coverage and also make the sentry guns themselves a harder target to hit
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    If they are standing in the middle of a US mine field, who are they gonna claim asylum to?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    A wall would be OK, but I personally would prefer using a combination of drones, land mines, automated sentry guns, and foot patrols
    Not very subtle satire detected. Is Texan currently serving time?

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Not very subtle satire detected. Is Texan currently serving time?
    No, but it is currently serving time. My sandwich should be served shortly.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Not very subtle satire detected. Is Texan currently serving time?
    Texans are never subtle.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Time is running out
    By Seraphim in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-26-2012, 11:00 PM
  2. Time is Running Out!
    By dr. hfn in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 08:44 PM
  3. Time running out on $8k first-time home buyer tax credit
    By Liberty Star in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-30-2009, 09:27 PM
  4. We are running out of time!
    By S3eker in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-10-2008, 11:09 AM
  5. Time is RUNNING OUT!!!
    By Sematary in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 01:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •