Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 109 of 109

Thread: Amash: Libertarians and progressives can be great allies...

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Let’s try to stay on topic.



    Ah, all roads lead to Trump.

    Was Trump at the presentation with Amash and AOC? Rejecting extending invitations to one of the most infamous communists in Congress has nothing to do with Trump.

    I don't care if Amash did this, he is free to do whatever he wants. More power to him, someone has to attempt to engage with the radical left, perhaps influence them.
    Go easy on TheCount. In another thread, he claims to be a libertarian/conservative. Trust him. He is one of us.
    ...



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I don't care if Amash did this, he is free to do whatever he wants. More power to him, someone has to attempt to engage with the radical left, perhaps influence them.
    That's really all that needs to be said on this topic. All the other stuff is just unnecessary division among people who are pretty close ideologically.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    There's a reason both statist parties hate libertarians. They want power, the apparatchiks of both parties are on an inside track to get it, and they want all the power concentrated where they can get at it.

    When a young prog realizes he or she will never be God Emperor, and looks around his University of Chicago class at some of the sociopaths who actually might, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments start looking pretty good.
    You assume they think like you. They do not. Their view is that there is 'wealth' and they want to be on the team that takes it.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Maybe he can walk her home from school and carry her ipad.



    I'm confused. I thought Republicans are redneck trailer park deplorables.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  6. #95
    I'm a Paleoconservative & not a Libertarian.
    I agree with some people on the left that starting wars especially in the middle east is bad but for different reasons.
    I don't believe in regime change wars because I know that most muslims want islam & not Freedom.
    The left on the other hand opposes the wars because they side always with 3rd world countries over the west.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    I’d have to guess that the people paying Amash have some limitations on who is acceptable as a guest...

    I wonder if Ron Paul was considered? Is there a list anywhere of all of his guest speakers?
    I don't know of any list. But in addition to AOC and Michael Malice, he's also hosted Joe Norman (@normonics):

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...09389082910725
    I'd never heard of him, but his Twitter bio says he lives in New Hampshire and reads:

    Founder, Applied Complexity Science LLC @AppliedComplex AppliedComplexity.io, RealWorldRisk.com, Necsi.edu Complexity, Localism, Homesteading

    For whatever it's worth, his followers include Amash, Gad Saad, Christopher Rufo, Thaddeus Russell (who I previously mentioned would be a good lefty type for Amash to host), the Free State Project, a couple of state Mises Caucus orgs (Montana & New Hampshire), and @Lucille from here at RPFs. He follows the national and New Hampshire Mises Caucuses, Dave Smith, and anti-Woke accounts like Christopher Rufo and Wokal Distance, among others.

    He has the following tweet pinned in his profile:

    https://twitter.com/normonics/status...21841849679873



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,463
    Join Date
    May 2007
    My take... I agree with Justin to a point, the key however is to:

    1) Treat others with respect (no name calling, degrading, etc)
    2) Identify where there is really a common end-goal.
    3) Educator others on how to get what they are after with pro-liberty principles, and why their proposed solutions are problematic.


    Take the issue of the rich getting richer; the left see this as cause for more government / higher taxes, which we know 1) are counter to liberty 2) won't work 3) will ultimately hurt the middle class.

    I wrote a summary of my pro-liberty view on how to address the "rich getting richer" issue in a 2014 post / turned blog:

    ... at the heart of the "rich getting richer" issue in that government policy / law is quite often manipulated by the elite wealthy class for their own self serving interests. This is what needs to stop, and it can be done. There are some clear and obvious examples of this such as corporate handouts, special privileges that only corporations enjoy, manipulation of regulations to benefit big corporations, manipulation of trade agreements and so on. These need to stop.

    There is one major root problem however, the Federal Reserve System, which puts the control of our entire money supply into the hands of seven people. Seven. We tend to be feed information that these board members are looking out for the best interests of the country but many here say they end up serving the interest of the elite banking class allowing for easy profits of countless billions a year. Talk about the rich getting richer...

    Consider the possibility that the seven board members, who are each serving 14 year terms, pre-plan out the highs and lows of interest rates for the next 8 years, a road-map of sorts, and only share that with an elite few. Do you have any idea how much that information would be worth? That's just the beginning of the problems with the Federal Reserve System, I highly recommend doing some research if you haven't, here is a 42 minute video I would suggest for starters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYL_NVU1bg

    You can also get into the debt-based monitory unit we use and more.

    Now repeat this on other applicable issues.

    So there are common bridges, the problem is that too many are feed a single narrative on fixing the problems (always more government that benefits the elite class) and without a lot of thought / searching, it's easy to go with the flow.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    My take... I agree with Justin to a point, the key however is to:

    1) Treat others with respect (no name calling, degrading, etc)
    2) Identify where there is really a common end-goal.
    3) Educator others on how to get what they are after with pro-liberty principles, and why their proposed solutions are problematic.


    Take the issue of the rich getting richer; the left see this as cause for more government / higher taxes, which we know 1) are counter to liberty 2) won't work 3) will ultimately hurt the middle class.

    I wrote a summary of my pro-liberty view on how to address the "rich getting richer" issue in a 2014 post / turned blog:

    ... at the heart of the "rich getting richer" issue in that government policy / law is quite often manipulated by the elite wealthy class for their own self serving interests. This is what needs to stop, and it can be done. There are some clear and obvious examples of this such as corporate handouts, special privileges that only corporations enjoy, manipulation of regulations to benefit big corporations, manipulation of trade agreements and so on. These need to stop.

    There is one major root problem however, the Federal Reserve System, which puts the control of our entire money supply into the hands of seven people. Seven. We tend to be feed information that these board members are looking out for the best interests of the country but many here say they end up serving the interest of the elite banking class allowing for easy profits of countless billions a year. Talk about the rich getting richer...

    Consider the possibility that the seven board members, who are each serving 14 year terms, pre-plan out the highs and lows of interest rates for the next 8 years, a road-map of sorts, and only share that with an elite few. Do you have any idea how much that information would be worth? That's just the beginning of the problems with the Federal Reserve System, I highly recommend doing some research if you haven't, here is a 42 minute video I would suggest for starters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYL_NVU1bg

    You can also get into the debt-based monitory unit we use and more.

    Now repeat this on other applicable issues.

    So there are common bridges, the problem is that too many are feed a single narrative on fixing the problems (always more government that benefits the elite class) and without a lot of thought / searching, it's easy to go with the flow.
    The only thing I agree with in any of this analysis is corporate welfare should be eliminated. That should be done with eliminating stimmy checks as well.

    I don't agree the "rich getting richer" is a problem. I think the income inequality debate is pure leftist nonsense. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B015CKO1DY...ng=UTF8&btkr=1 For the same reason, I don't see bottom income earners are also getting richer (which they are) as problem. Wealth inequality is self correcting. If it from something artificial there will be a bust and the gap will close

    To the extent income gaps have widened, it is because of the changing economy. Creativity and knowledge are more highly prized and the ability to manage a global business is paid more.

    Consider the possibility that the seven board members, who are each serving 14 year terms, pre-plan out the highs and lows of interest rates for the next 8 years, a road-map of sorts, and only share that with an elite few. Do you have any idea how much that information would be worth?
    That information wouldn't be worth anything. The Federal Reserve doesn't control interest rates. https://www.econlib.org/library/Colu...restrates.html

    I suspect your argument is something like the Federal Reserve held interest rates artificially low for the last 12 years and enabled people with early access to get cheap credit at the expense of everyone else. And those low interest rates caused an artificial boom because of cheap money.

    The problem with that is if rates were held artificially low, inflation would go up and all the interest rates the Fed has no influence on would go up. That never happened. http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.c...marketers.html
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 05-09-2021 at 02:25 PM.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    I'm confused. I thought Republicans are redneck trailer park deplorables.
    If that commie bitch wants a second home she should try getting a real job or two . Amash is needed in Portland now.
    Do something Danke

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    If that commie bitch wants a second home she should try getting a real job or two
    Most representatives do have a "real job or two" on the side of being a rep: selling us out.


    So long as the federal govt requires full-time representation in DC (and I'm not sure that it should), congressional salary should be enough that reps don't need to take bribes on the sides. Pay them a wage that lets them make ends meet, then forbid them from any other form of income which could pose a conflict of interest.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    In conclusion THE ONLY WAY BIDEN IS GOING TO SEE THE INSIDE OF THE OVAL OFFICE IS VIA THE A WHITEHOUSE PUBLIC TOUR

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Most representatives do have a "real job or two" on the side of being a rep: selling us out.


    So long as the federal govt requires full-time representation in DC (and I'm not sure that it should), congressional salary should be enough that reps don't need to take bribes on the sides. Pay them a wage that lets them make ends meet, then forbid them from any other form of income which could pose a conflict of interest.
    I'm sure AOC could make money dancing on TikToc or Twitch.
    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.

  14. #102
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,463
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The only thing I agree with in any of this analysis is corporate welfare should be eliminated.
    Hi! Thanks for the reply. I don't want to hijack this thread but it could be a good discussion on talk about these items.
    Issues: special privileges that only corporations enjoy, manipulation of regulations to benefit big corporations, manipulation of trade agreements

    I don't agree the "rich getting richer" is a problem.
    I completely agree, it's not a problem onto itself.

    FYI, this highlights a tactic in my post which was made in direct reply to someone on the left who was posting here. I worked to direct him to pro-liberty viewpoints that would address what he saw as a problem with no intent to agree or disagree. (Just one of many useful approaches).

    I think the income inequality debate is pure leftist nonsense.
    As it's being presented, and the pushed for solutions, I agree 100%; but again with a view of trying to build allies the tactic is to look at how pro-liberty views can help address the issue. With that it's possible to see some anti-liberty elements that play a role in the issue, which can make it not complete nonsense to a degree.



    That information wouldn't be worth anything. The Federal Reserve doesn't control interest rates. https://www.econlib.org/library/Colu...restrates.html
    Thanks, good piece. A few points....
    1) This statement within the piece: "There is no denying that central banks have some impact on interest rates, in both the short and the long run." is enough of what I'm after to illustrate my point. That impact is still a huge deal when looking at the massive scale of things.
    2) You and the piece are absolutely correct, the Fed can't exactly just do whatever they want. To sum up the piece, it's complicated.

    FYI, my message here was also tailored to an approach of building allies by trying to simplify a message that is consumable to the target audience. One of the blessing of the free-thinking / pro-liberty movement is there are a lot of fact-based, detail-oriented, deep thinking people. This is ultimately what is needed to win the day, but I'd argue there is also value in trying to find simple ways to explain complex subjects to people when trying to win them over.


    I suspect your argument is something like the Federal Reserve held interest rates artificially low for the last 12 years and enabled people with early access to get cheap credit at the expense of everyone else. And those low interest rates caused an artificial boom because of cheap money.
    I was just pointing out the general issue of power consolidation, not referencing any specific decisions for any time frame (this was written in 2014 too).

    Thanks again!
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Most representatives do have a "real job or two" on the side of being a rep: selling us out.

    So long as the federal govt requires full-time representation in DC (and I'm not sure that it should), congressional salary should be enough that reps don't need to take bribes on the sides. Pay them a wage that lets them make ends meet, then forbid them from any other form of income which could pose a conflict of interest.
    You recently (and quite correctly) evinced skepticism of the notion that "people stop wanting money after $45 million".

    So why would members of Congress stop wanting more money, regardless of any "ends-meeting" raises they may have given themselves?

    Influence peddlers gonna peddle influence. Influence buyers gonna buy influence. The more power the government has, the more influence it will have to sell - and the more buyers will try to outbid each other for it (where "more" is relative to both the number of bidders and the sizes of their bids). Concocting rules to get rid of such "soft" money (or in-kind "contributions") will merely result in yet "softer" money that will simply find some way of getting around the rules (assuming such self-imposed rules are actually even enforced in anything more than a self-serving and desultorily partisan manner to begin with, which requires quite a stretch of gullibility ).

    File "pay raise with conflict-of-interest rules vis--vis other income" under "deck-chair rearrangement schemes that do absolutely nothing to significantly reduce the power and scope of government" - right along with things like term limits and campaign finance reform. At best, these things will accomplish nothing more than changing the details of how (but not at all changing how much) influence is peddled.

  16. #104
    Amash better watch his "reaching out" to women. He could end up like Stachel!


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    You recently (and quite correctly) evinced skepticism of the notion that "people stop wanting money after $45 million".

    So why would members of Congress stop wanting more money, regardless of any "ends-meeting" raises they may have given themselves?
    They wouldn't. That's why they must be forbidden from other sources of income, like I said. At the moment, they might have an argument that their salary simply isn't enough to me the expenses that the life of a rep requires. Pay them a fair wage, then outlaw the currently-prevalent forms of influence peddling and trading on information which is not available to the ordinary citizen.

    This is a common issue in many places where corruption is accepted. In these areas, often government jobs simply pay too little money, and the ability to earn more money by taking bribes is just considered to be part of the salary and perks of the job.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    In conclusion THE ONLY WAY BIDEN IS GOING TO SEE THE INSIDE OF THE OVAL OFFICE IS VIA THE A WHITEHOUSE PUBLIC TOUR

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    outlaw the currently-prevalent forms of influence peddling and trading on information which is not available to the ordinary citizen.
    What are some specific new laws you have in mind that would accomplish this?

    It seems to me that there is no conceivable law that would prevent the richest people and corporations from being able to use their wealth to influence politicians.

    If there is a conceivable solution (conceivable, but still very unrealistic practically), it is to remove the incentive by not allowing the government to have the amount of power that makes it worth it for those ultra-rich to expend the amount of money that it would cost to influence them.

    But as long as the government has that power (which I believe it always inevitably will), it will always be moved in accordance with the iron law of oligarchy.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    What are some specific new laws you have in mind that would accomplish this?
    One example would be to allow reps to invest only in index funds or broad, professionally managed investments, preferably investments which are available to the general public as well, and forbid them from trading in individual companies or industries.

    That seems relatively simple. Is it perfect? No, of course not. It reduces but does not eliminate their ability to make money off of their influence. But if that reduction takes the potential profit down to the point where the scandal would be more detrimental than the trading would be profitable... that might discourage most from taking the chance.

    This could be stricter for those who sit on a particular committee or have some kind of extra influence over a certain industry. For example... someone on the armed services committee should not be making money by trading stocks of military suppliers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    If there is a conceivable solution (conceivable, but still very unrealistic practically), it is to remove the incentive by not allowing the government to have the amount of power that makes it worth it for those ultra-rich to expend the amount of money that it would cost to influence them.

    But as long as the government has that power, it will always be moved in accordance with the iron law of oligarchy.
    I agree, of course. And reducing the number of places and ways that the federal government can influence markets should also be pursued.

    However, absent an ideal world in which we do not need basic elements of statehood like a military, there will always be some amount of economic influence in the hands of reps
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    In conclusion THE ONLY WAY BIDEN IS GOING TO SEE THE INSIDE OF THE OVAL OFFICE IS VIA THE A WHITEHOUSE PUBLIC TOUR

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Id have to guess that the people paying Amash have some limitations on who is acceptable as a guest...

    I wonder if Ron Paul was considered? Is there a list anywhere of all of his guest speakers?
    His next guest is this person:

    https://twitter.com/janecoaston/stat...53049919533057


    This page has more details: https://iop.z2systems.com/np/clients...jsp?event=1078

    Via the "Upcoming Fellows Seminars" link at this page, I found this placeholder for a to-be-determined guest on the 20th and also this joint presentation on the 24th by Amash & a former governor of Massachusetts (via the same source). I haven't been able to find anything about his previous guests, though. Maybe Michael Malice, AOC, and Joe Norman are the only ones so far. (The event scheduled for the 20th is labeled as "Seminar Eight" but I don't know if that means the eighth one by Amash, or the eighth one overall.)

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    His next guest is this person:

    https://twitter.com/janecoaston/stat...53049919533057


    This page has more details: https://iop.z2systems.com/np/clients...jsp?event=1078

    Via the "Upcoming Fellows Seminars" link at this page, I found this placeholder for a to-be-determined guest on the 20th and also this joint presentation on the 24th by Amash & a former governor of Massachusetts (via the same source). I haven't been able to find anything about his previous guests, though. Maybe Michael Malice, AOC, and Joe Norman are the only ones so far. (The event scheduled for the 20th is labeled as "Seminar Eight" but I don't know if that means the eighth one by Amash, or the eighth one overall.)
    From her Twitter feed, it appears Jane Coaston is some kind left wing media pundit? Or a leftarian who gets invited to be the token Libertarian on left wing media outlets?
    Last edited by Brian4Liberty; 05-12-2021 at 06:27 PM.
    "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-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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Progressives Allies Discuss Rand Paul's Debate Preformance
    By GopBlackList in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-07-2015, 09:25 PM
  2. Progressives: Libertarians + Social Programs
    By cdc482 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 241
    Last Post: 08-13-2012, 03:00 AM
  3. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-08-2011, 09:34 AM
  4. One way to win: Libertarians + Progressives
    By cdc482 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-07-2011, 12:26 AM
  5. Progressives, Libertarians, Conservatives, UNITE
    By AlexMerced in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-08-2010, 09:25 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
  •