Explain to me how a closed border position is compatible with Liberty.Originally Posted by Jamesiv1
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
Only we're talking about a plane ride. It's a fact that Trump won the nomination, and a fact that Rand would have brung a coherent liberty policy component to Trump, while ending up in a more senior position. So it remains a fact they would benefit being on a ticket together.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
It's going to be Trump or Clinton or Sanders. Trump is far from perfect but is a damned sight better than either of the Demonrats. He also happens to be a lot closer to the Pauls than most people yet know. Watch, and mark my words -- if he's elected. We better make sure that he wins.
You mean, you think a liberty position can only take an "open borders" view, where a migrant doesn't have to get permission to to enter the country by legal contract or process. Whereas others understand protecting the borders, and migrants exercising individual responsibility by seeking such consent, are relevant components of true free immigration.
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 05-06-2016 at 05:16 PM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
It would only be closed to incoming criminals, guaranteed welfare recipients and potential terrorists. I for one will be glad to see that kind of change and can't understand why any patriot would argue with it, either.
It also would take him out of the Senate so that Trillary initiatives couldn't be blocked. He's fine where he is at. He's said as much. It isn't going to happen. Get over it.
No. He's not a damned sight better. He is exactly the same. He just says different $#@! that he has no intention of doing. This election cycle Trillary will win. As in the establishment. Period. The Paul's despise him. Ron has called him "the same as Hillary." Ron has said he will not vote for Trump. Rand has said that he will NOT be Trump's VP.
Period. Just stop this lunacy already.
It depends on how that is accomplished- most proposals involve ramping up the police state for invasive screening and enforcement, which results in less liberty, and less support for such proposals on a liberty site.
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
LOL yeah, I'm one of those who understands that position. It was summed up nicely in the 1940s:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Nice try, but the law of noncontradiction is still a thing. Free immigration is not achieved through controlled borders.
Because I am not a "patriot". I do not have an emotional attachment to people who take 50% of my income, destroyed my ability to own property long before I was born, and claim the power to murder me in the street whenever they choose.
"Incoming criminals" can be charged with at least three felonies a day just the same as you and I can. Your argument falls flat on its face. The system you are emotionally attached to was designed to make criminals, and it finds them wherever it can.
"Guaranteed welfare recipients" - thank you for the opportunity to point out, once again, that the essence of that argument is that closed border advocates are actually in favor of continuing the welfare state. If you were truly devoted to killing it, you wouldn't have the slightest concern with who is suckling at it.
"Potential terrorists" - like people with Ron Paul bumper stickers? Or do you all really have such a miniscule memory?
What about how it's been demonstrated here and elsewhere, ad nauseum, that the entity in control of immigration is the single biggest generator of terrorists in the world?
Even when they're not overseas melting the faces off four-year-olds and turning their families into "terrorists", they're here at home concocting entrapment schemes to generate terrorists where there were none.
Even if you actually don't trust the federal leviathan state to do any of these things and wish they would stop, you have two other huge problems: First, that keeping everyone in the world from getting here isn't going to do anything to stop them from continuing to do them, and Second, that it makes zero sense to expect the people who are $#@!ing everything else up to suddenly do a good job on immigration.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
False dichotomies are also still a thing, as there is no contradiction. Controlled borders is not the opposite of free immigration, any more than a lease is the opposite of a free market in housing. Consent is relevant in both cases.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
There are about 6 posters on RPF that have neg rep me in the past 3 months, that I would like to see exposed for what they really are if a Trump/Paul ticket became a reality....
I would pay money to see that.
Better yet, have Trump call a news conference saying he was buying political life insurance(The JFK type) by making Rand VP and bringing in Ron as Secretary of State....heads would explode.
Last edited by ProBlue33; 05-06-2016 at 07:32 PM.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
You probably accused them of being SJW and they probably got tired of that typical Trump acrimonious mentality. As far as a Trump/Paul ticket. Nope. I wouldn't vote for it. What does that expose me of exactly?
@phill4paul
At least you are willing to admit it but.......As far as a Trump/Paul ticket. Nope. I wouldn't vote for it. What does that expose me of exactly?
It's a political ideology of cutting off the nose to spite the face rational at this point.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
I see things differently. And as I've said...it's not going to happen
>> How did we fail so massively at convincing Ron Paul supporters to reject Trump?
Thought I'd take a stab at answering this. But first, since I'm new, I'll introduce myself quickly. My primary interest is economics, not politics. I've got an econ degree, have attended Mises U. and the RGS, and still stay in touch with a few of the LvMI people (some of you, btw, don't give Rockwell nearly enough credit). I was more politically involved four years ago -- a delegate to my state convention where I pushed a few RP delegates to the national, ran as precinct chair, etc. I've met both Ron and Rand and discussed Cruz with another Paul just a few months ago. I had an account on the Daily Paul for years (just preferred their forum software to here) and have been lurking since the DP shut down. Regarding Trump, I'm still of the opinion that he started his campaign solely for self-promotion, was surprised at his own success, but now he actually wants to win.
Okay, enough of that, the answer to the question... you (meaning a handful of people here, keep in mind I'm not calling out anyone in particular below) have failed because your style of argumentation is extremely off-putting. A few bullet points:
- Question everything, *especially those things you believe the strongest in*. That will allow you to strengthen your beliefs and also see things from another point of view, allowing you to make concessions when warranted. The handful basically makes few, if any concessions. Off-putting.
- Be humble, not arrogant. You're probably not the smartest person on the forum. Your arguments are probably not as rock solid as you think they are. Arrogance is off-putting.
- Be respectful. The name calling and implications of stupidity are not. Someone implying you're an idiot is off-putting.
- Act like an adult. Again the name calling. Additionally things like neg'ing campaigns and starting scores of threads with random anti-Trump articles (then complaining about the Trump threads) is just juvenile. Juveniles throwing rocks is off-putting.
From *my* perspective, being extremely RP friendly and not really 'knowing' the RPF crowd, the handful of you come across as teenaged asshats. That's not the best tactic, IMO, to convince anyone of anything. Hell, I despise Trump and am tempted to vote for him just to stick it some of you. Not seriously, but hopefully you get the point.
Just my two cents. I took the time to create an account and comment because I believe getting the liberty message out is important and I've seen many in the movement with the same issues.
And that's the great advantage in jerrymandering a Trump nomination. Trump supporters, like Trump himself, do not debate. They bloviate. So, you can fight fire with fire, or you can shut down the bloviation with debate, only to find that while you were taking your time and going to the trouble, they were bloviating in seven new threads where no one can see your thoughtful and unimpeachable results.
They have finally reduced American politics to the point where it isn't about facts and it isn't about principles, and in fact it isn't about practical reality. It's about energy and noise. And that's no way to run a republic.
You can't concede that some Trump supporters debate. The guy near the end of the RP video on the front page is a case in point.
Trump supporters bloviate. Insulting.
Your results are unimpeachable. Arrogant.
I did and am expecting replies like this. Unfortunately.
If Trump supporters do debate, and if your debate points aren't unimpeachable, then those points should get refuted. Instead, the same bloviation is repeated somewhere else, where there is less resistance. These are the tactics that they are using, while we are hamstrung by each other when we challenge each other to let them run wild while we more deeply examine our navels.
At the end of the day, I am agreeing that we should debate, rather than sinking to their level. But we cannot put out the fire in our bellies and win against their tactics. We must say that right is right and that is that, and we must stand by that even if those who are wrong are insulted by it. If we do not, then those bystanders and casual observers who only know, 'This person seems so positive and that person seems so wishy-washy' will declare the winner of the debate to be the loser.
Is that the trap we should fall into, lest some lurker call us to task for not being polite enough? Did not Rand Paul just lose the nomination by following your very advice?
Have we never heard insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?
Last edited by acptulsa; 05-07-2016 at 12:49 PM.
Rand would probably be more effective in the cause of liberty by remaining in the Senate, where he can be "quirky" (Obama's word) and block bad legislation by any President.
It would be good to have a liberty oriented person somewhere in the President's Cabinet. Judge Nap would probably be available for AG.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Not calling you to task, just answering the question about failure to convince people to reject Trump.
Have we never heard insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?
Exactly. So why continue the arrogance (still prominent in your last comment, IMO) then ask why are we failing to convince people? If you start a discussion in attack mode, talking down to your victim, you're not going to get very far advancing a message.
Did not Rand Paul just lose the nomination by following your very advice?
In part, yes. The same could be said for Ron four years ago. But you're not running for office, you're trying to educate/convince. Ron was running to spread the word, not win an election (IMO), and I think he had pretty good success doing that while still remaining a respectful person.
some lurker
Yep. You could possibly think of me as an impartial observer of the Trump back-and-forth here over the past several months.
From the outside we might seem bitter, and we might seem to bicker. It's because either people don't listen when we have explained to them the error of their ways, or they flat out ignore parts of your argument and talk over and steer the conversation into a different direction. From the outside looking in, you have a 40 second attention span and your right it's just like the primary.
You have reasonable liberty arguments and then 20 threads about how Trumps speech is non intervention, when he just did a speech before that to Aipac that he said was more important than the debates, that wasn't broadcasted on prime time tv and talked about. Where he said he would take care of the Iranian problem Israel has funding islamic terrorism.
You expect a lot of me, to assume I can overcome a trillion dollars worth of free publicity and about a trillion watts of broadcast power all by my little lonesome.
Hm. So, I should respond to arrogance, and people talking down to me because I don't buy every little thing the media shoves down our throats, with...?
And what you're doing here is not an attack because...?
Well, since you were kind enough to ask, and didn't get presumptuous (a form of arrogance) enough to make an assumption about me, no. I am not interested in another educational campaign. I want the LP to run to win.
And if they win twenty percent of the vote, I will consider it a win, because then people will spend the next four years taking the LP seriously.
And who is talking down to whom now...?
I possibly could. But as long as you accuse me of faults Trump supporters tend to share, and faults that you share, I'm not likely to.
You see, at the end of the day, Trump is obnoxious, the way the media has given him about fifty times more coverage than anyone else is obnoxious, and he has fans all over the internet being obnoxious. And those fans are on a roll--they know not to where, but on a roll nonetheless--so they are unreachable. Which leaves the great, unheard, overwhelming majority of Americans. And they're sick of the whole thing. Sick and tired of it.
And if I can win fans among them by fighting fire with fire, I'm going to do so. And I'm not going to let anyone talk me out of it.
Last edited by acptulsa; 05-07-2016 at 06:09 PM.
I thought it was the delegates who determine the VP nominee.
From what I've always understood, the Presidential Nominee can "suggest" who they would prefer to run with them, but it is the delegates who vote for and determine who the VP nominee will be.
I could be wrong about this, but if I'm not, then the delegates could vote for whomever they want. If they want Rand Paul, then they should put their money where there mouth is and get him nominated for the spot.
He could always reject the nomination or win if he wanted.
What you see on here is not just about Trump, it is just the latest incarnation of an ongoing grudge about things that happened years ago. Some people use Trump to carry that grudge, but they have also attracted real Trump supporters who (in general) share a nasty disposition- when they are challenged, they see it as a threat and lash out. This site is very tolerant of Trump supporters; in fact, while they only make up about 10% of the active membership here, 75% of the membership say they would not want to see them unilaterally banned:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rom-this-forum
Promotion of Trump's campaign (ex: rallying support) is not allowed on RPFs, so discussions on the topic are centered around "why not?". Many of them attempt to argue from emotion and make numerous baseless claims, they do not take it well when this is pointed out to them. Some have occasionally engaged in valid discussion, but have failed to make a strong case for the Trump campaign being anything but potentially destructive to liberty and the RPFs mission. The thread where this determination was made can be seen here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Trump-(POTUS)
Note that the policy on Trump is not set in stone- anyone can go in that thread and potentially convince Bryan to make changes to the policy.
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
There is a formal balloting process that has been occasionally used, but modern conventions have usually gone with the nominee's choice and nominated the VP by acclamation.
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
So the delegates DO have the final say so.
Even if they didn't, they could change the rules making it their decision.
Ok, I just might have to modify my car again to say "Rand Paul for Vice President"...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
Vice President used to go to the second highest vote getter in the electoral college. That could mean President and Vice President from different parties.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/..._President.htm
Under the system the framers created, the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would be president. The one coming in second would be vice president.
In the election of 1800, however, the constitutional system for electing presidents broke down, as both Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. This impasse threw the contest into the House of Representatives, where for thirty-five separate ballots, neither candidate was able to gain a majority. When the stalemate was finally broken, the House elected Jefferson president, thus making Aaron Burr our third vice president. Within four years of this deadlocked election, Congress had passed, and the necessary number of states had ratified, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, instituting the present system wherein electors cast separate ballots for president and for vice president.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us