Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

[YChang 3531]

I have a soft spot for Rand’s dad... the only time I reached out to a govt official,  his office really helped expedite some of the snafus with the SS office to fix a mistake with my SS card. I was too young to really remember Ron’s time in office. But other than his stances on the federal reserve, taxes etc... he wasn’t... despicable like Rand was he?

[troph 25095]

His dad was principled, that’s not debatable.  In the end I can’t be a Ron Paul libertarian for a number of reasons but many of his policy positions were compelling.

[bolverk 30243]

15 minutes ago, YChang said:

I have a soft spot for Rand’s dad... the only time I reached out to a govt official,  his office really helped expedite some of the snafus with the SS office to fix a mistake with my SS card. I was too young to really remember Ron’s time in office. But other than his stances on the federal reserve, taxes etc... he wasn’t... despicable like Rand was he?

Do some research on his racist and homophobic "newsletters" from the 1990s, and you might not find the answer you'd like.

Edit: His supposedly enlightened libertarian ideals were always the despicable piece of shit, evangelical variety.

Edited November 6, 2019 by bolverk

[El Diablo 4232]

I thought the whistleblowers name was common knowledge. He should probably just leak it, you know, 'cause that's how things are done on the Hill. 

[wildcat09 29561]

3 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I used to call myself a Libertarian.  I spent most of my time back then talking shit about Bush II.  The problem is, I saw that most people who called themselves Libertarian were either fucking crazy or they were Republicans but didn't want to admit it.  So I quit calling myself that.  I guess my party now is the Never Vote Republican party...

This was basically me. While I’ve come around to supporting public investments in things I don’t think markets should be trusted to provide (e.g. education and basic infrastructure), most of my political beliefs still rest on Mill’s harm principle, but a more expansive interpretation than most self-proclaimed libertarians would espouse. But then I looked around and realized nearly everyone who called themselves a libertarian sounded completely batshit insane if you listened to them for more than five minutes. And that’s before they get to the rampant racism.

[wildcat09 29561]

34 minutes ago, YChang said:

I have a soft spot for Rand’s dad... the only time I reached out to a govt official,  his office really helped expedite some of the snafus with the SS office to fix a mistake with my SS card. I was too young to really remember Ron’s time in office. But other than his stances on the federal reserve, taxes etc... he wasn’t... despicable like Rand was he?

This was just last year:

https://www.newsweek.com/ron-paul-racist-anti-semitic-tweet-1005102

[Anastasis 23700]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Where does supporting an authoritarian executive with absolute and unquestionable power fit into the whole "libertarian" thing?

I never said it did.  I have in fact stated like two or three times on the last page that Rand is off the rails with his alignment to trump, notably with the Ukrainian mess, and that it will be to his political detriment in the long term. 

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

I would say "non agression" is the wrong term. From what I can tell, the more accurate description of a coherent and consistent foreign policy stance (trade and defense) among Libertarians appears to be "isolationism."

The non-aggression principle reflects as libertarian trade "isolationism".  That's a new one.  

[bolverk 30243]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The non-aggression principle reflects as libertarian trade "isolationism".  That's a new one.  

No, I'm saying that Libertarian isolationism is often cloaked underneath the principle of nonaggression -- at least on this board.

There aren't a lot of self-professed members of the Libertarian Party in this forum (most of us eschew party labels), but I can't think of many that I'd place in the Libertarian box that are in favor of free trade deals or other multilateral agreements like NAFTA, TPP, Paris Climate Accords, or are vocal defenders of NATO or the EU. On the other hand, I see many that support shit like Brexit and the such.

The general distrust of such international agreements, I think, can be very fairly placed in the isolationism box. Being for those things does NOT equate being FOR AGGRESSION.

[Brisketexan 106632]

Yet you still don’t get it. He’s not “off the rails.” He was never on ANY rails. He has only one guiding principle: political expediency for Rand. Everything else was and is a lie.
This isn’t about Rand making unfortunate choices at odds with his principles. It’s about him not ever having any principles. That’s the part you can’t admit. Because it means you got suckered.
Rand Paul is not just the same scum as the craven political opportunists; he’s worse, because he held him out as principled, above it all. All while he was the biggest whore of them all.

[Anastasis 23700]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

There aren't a lot of self-professed members of the Libertarian Party in this forum (most of us eschew party labels), but I can't think of many that I'd place in the Libertarian box that are in favor of free trade deals or other multilateral agreements like NAFTA, TPP, Paris Climate Accords, or are vocal defenders of NATO or the EU. On the other hand, I see many that support shit like Brexit and the such.

The general distrust of such international agreements, I think, can be very fairly placed in the isolationism box. Being for those things does NOT equate being FOR AGGRESSION.

I think that you are just twisting yourself in pretzels to pivot a point made regarding the non-aggression principle as perhaps the dominant influence on libertarian thinking so that you can throw around unrelated pejoratives like "isolationist". 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Anastasis

[wildcat09 29561]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet you still don’t get it. He’s not “off the rails.” He was never on ANY rails. He has only one guiding principle: political expediency for Rand. Everything else was and is a lie.
This isn’t about Rand making unfortunate choices at odds with his principles. It’s about him not ever having any principles. That’s the part you can’t admit. Because it means you got suckered.
Rand Paul is not just the same scum as the craven political opportunists; he’s worse, because he held him out as principled, above it all. All while he was the biggest whore of them all.

He’s a dumber, whiter version of Ted Cruz. They came at it from slightly different angles (Cruz was more overtly religious), but this was the gist of each of their sales pitches.

[atomheartbevo 90550]

I just want to see Larry Gatlin and Rand Paul in the same room together.  

[jimmyjazz 46982]

I've always had the impression of Rand Paul being the son of the dude who built the company from the ground up and wants his son to continue in his footsteps, but the son could not be less interested.  Surely we've all sat in meetings with that son . . . the overarching theme of which seems to be "WTF?  aren't you like VP of Marketing or something like that?"

[bolverk 30243]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that you are just twisting yourself in pretzels to pivot a point made regarding the non-aggression principle as perhaps the dominant influence on libertarian thinking so that you can throw around unrelated pejoratives like "isolationist". 

No, I'm telling you precisely how I personally interpret the statement of belief in "nonagression" from a Libertarian that's based, primarily, on my interactions in this forum. Those who profess to be Libertarians tend to also be largely against any sort of international agreements (trade, defense, or otherwise).

It's not a twist of logic. Rather, it's the recognition of a single word that actually describes a broader category of beliefs. In this case, opposition to most (if not all) international agreement/treaty obligations.

It's okay. I don't mind being called a "globalist," because I am. I believe in those things. What I don't understand is folks shying away from accurate descriptions of what they are, and from my experience most American Libertarians have a decidedly isolationist bent.

[Anastasis 23700]

52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Rand Paul is not just the same scum as the craven political opportunists; he’s worse, because he held him out as principled, above it all. All while he was the biggest whore of them all.

No one has ever claimed that Rand is not a political opportunist.  He is far more of a political opportunist than his father was.  And I think that is a large part of why he has aligned himself with Trump, opportunism.  And I think that he will (and should) suffer in the end politically for it.  As far as being the biggest whore and all, by objective assessment he is ranked as the 2nd lowest GOP Senator in terms of agreement with Trump's positions (just behind Collins). And the lowest ranked Republican, below a good number of Democrats, when Trump' s 2016 home state support is accounted in the rankings. I don't think that his positions on things which most of the posters on this board purport to agree with him on...things such as criminal justice reform, military spending, asset forfeiture reform, war powers, surveillance abuse, etc...are demonstrated to be "fake personas". I think that that is a bit hyperbolic.   

Edited November 6, 2019 by Anastasis

[Brisketexan 106632]

No one has ever claimed that Rand is not a political opportunist.  He is far more of a political opportunist than his father was.  And I think that is a large part of why he has aligned himself with Trump, opportunism.  And I think that he will (and should) suffer in the end politically for it.  As far as being the biggest whore and all, by objective assessment he is ranked as the 2nd lowest GOP Senator in terms of agreement with Trump's positions (just behind Collins). And the lowest ranked Republican, below a good number of Democrats, when Trump' s 2016 home state support is accounted in the rankings. I don't think that his positions on things which most of the posters on this board purport to agree with him on...things such as criminal justice reform, military spending, asset forfeiture reform, war powers, surveillance abuse, etc...are demonstrated to be "fake personas". I think that that is a bit hyperbolic.   

It’s not about any of those positions. It’s about what he actually believes. Why do you believe that he sincerely holds those positions? Why do you believe that he sincerely holds ANY position, other than “it’s good to be in the senate, and I should stay here?” He acts consistent with a position because he thinks it’s politically expedient. That’s it. That’s how someone supposedly for limited government has gone all-in on the executive as an all-powerful authoritarian - beliefs that are entirely incompatible.
But keep believing in that unicorn, if it brings you comfort.

[Anastasis 23700]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That’s how someone supposedly for limited government has gone all-in on the executive as an all-powerful authoritarian

There is plenty to criticize Paul on, including his aggrandizing of Trump, without going hyperbolic. Paul is far from an ideal representative of libertarian leaning perspectives; however, imo, he offers a useful perspective in the political debates related to foreign policy, trade policy, civil liberties, the surveillance state, spending, etc. You probably agree with a good measure of his perspective on those topics, but reject the basis of that perspective from him, and its utility in the Senate, because alignment with the orange man on other areas. Which is fine. Personally I would prefer an Amash over a Paul in the Senate.   

 

BTW: Votes from current congress that do not reflect a supposed all-in position on the executive branch as all-powerful authoritarian: 

Sept. 25 Overturning President Trump’s emergency declaration for border wall funding (54-41)Oppose Yes

June 20 Blocking the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (51-45)Oppose Yes

June 20 Blocking the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia (53-45)Oppose Yes

June 20 Blocking the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia (53-45)Oppose Yes

May 2 Overriding President Trump’s veto of a bill ending U.S. military assistance to Saudi-led forces in the war in Yemen (53-45)Oppose Yes

March 14 Overturning President Trump’s emergency declaration for border wall funding (59-41)Oppose Yes

March 13 Ending U.S. military assistance to Saudi-led forces in the war in Yemen (54-46)Oppose Yes

 

[Anastasis 23700]

8 hours ago, bolverk said:

No, I'm telling you precisely how I personally interpret the statement of belief in "nonagression" from a Libertarian that's based, primarily, on my interactions in this forum.

Imagine forming your political understanding of just about anything, much less the underlying influences on libertarian philosophy, primarily from posters in the Cloak Room.  

Edited November 6, 2019 by Anastasis

[bolverk 30243]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Imagine forming your political understanding of just about anything, much less the underlying influences on libertarian philosophy, primarily from posters in the Cloak Room.  

I didn't say nuthin' about underlying influences -- only commented on how those beliefs are applied in the real world.

Name me a Libertarian who is in favor of NAFTA, TPP, UN, EU, NATO, Paris Climate Accords, and is generally a proponent of robust international engagement. Applying the term "nonaggression" to describe opposition to those treaties and agreements is not an accurate description as it implies that those in favor, such as myself, are aggressors.

I wasn't using the term isolationism as a pejorative. It's just simply more accurate.

i·so·la·tion·ism
/ˌīsəˈlāSHəˌnizəm/

noun
a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

[atomheartbevo 90550]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

No one has ever claimed that Rand is not a political opportunist.  He is far more of a political opportunist than his father was.  And I think that is a large part of why he has aligned himself with Trump, opportunism.  And I think that he will (and should) suffer in the end politically for it.  

His opportunism is eventually going to collide head-on with his lack of self-awareness, and we may see it with this whistleblower business.   His little tweet about the whistleblower's identity got picked up by all of the Russian outlets (how convenient).  His lack of self-awareness is not going to result in an ass beating by the neighbor this time, it could very well get somebody harmed, or even killed.

Rand is claiming that he's probably going to release the name, and I don't see that helping Trump and the GOP at this point, at all.   It's like giving the iceberg that you just ran into a name.  Actually, scratch that, the iceberg in this case is all of the testimony from the past few weeks.  It's like naming the lookout up in the crow's nest.    

He's supposedly got other Senators telling him to shut the fuck up, but his opportunism is feeding off of his self-awareness, and should he name the whistleblower, the American public, particularly independents, young folks, moderates, Dems, etc. are going to see Trump lose his shit on twitter going after that person, and most likely some Trumpkin will try and kill the whistleblower, all the while screaming "MAGA".    Releasing the name does nothing to help Trump's impeachment case, given all of the testimony, and it only slightly helps Trump with a small part of his base.  Watching Trump and his followers try and destroy the whistleblower's life, both figuratively, and probably literally, is going to make the GOP look bad.

 

[lemonlime 5503]

23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

His opportunism is eventually going to collide head-on with his lack of self-awareness, and we may see it with this whistleblower business.   His little tweet about the whistleblower's identity got picked up by all of the Russian outlets (how convenient).  His lack of self-awareness is not going to result in an ass beating by the neighbor this time, it could very well get somebody harmed, or even killed.

Rand is claiming that he's probably going to release the name, and I don't see that helping Trump and the GOP at this point, at all.   It's like giving the iceberg that you just ran into a name.  Actually, scratch that, the iceberg in this case is all of the testimony from the past few weeks.  It's like naming the lookout up in the crow's nest.    

He's supposedly got other Senators telling him to shut the fuck up, but his opportunism is feeding off of his self-awareness, and should he name the whistleblower, the American public, particularly independents, young folks, moderates, Dems, etc. are going to see Trump lose his shit on twitter going after that person, and most likely some Trumpkin will try and kill the whistleblower, all the while screaming "MAGA".    Releasing the name does nothing to help Trump's impeachment case, given all of the testimony, and it only slightly helps Trump with a small part of his base.  Watching Trump and his followers try and destroy the whistleblower's life, both figuratively, and probably literally, is going to make the GOP look bad.

 

Christine Blasey Ford says hi. They don't give a fuck whose lives they destroy.  They just want to whip up their cult members.  

[atomheartbevo 90550]

Just now, lemonlime said:

Christine Blasey Ford says hi. They don't give a fuck whose lives they destroy.  They just want to whip up their cult members.  

On a scale of 1-10 for potential shitstorm, with 10 being the whistleblower's identity, Christine Blasey Ford rates about a 2, maybe 2.5.  Few remember her at this point, nobody is going to try and kill her while screaming "MAGA TRUMP FOREVER".   The whistleblower's identity, should it be actually revealed (so far it seems like a lot of pranksters and people guessing) would not leave the public conscious.

[wildcat09 29561]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

On a scale of 1-10 for potential shitstorm, with 10 being the whistleblower's identity, Christine Blasey Ford rates about a 2, maybe 2.5.  Few remember her at this point, nobody is going to try and kill her while screaming "MAGA TRUMP FOREVER".   The whistleblower's identity, should it be actually revealed (so far it seems like a lot of pranksters and people guessing) would not leave the public conscious.

Man, this is waaay off. The right is still incensed over the Kavanaugh thing and Blasey Ford still gets death threats. She probably will for the rest of her life. A ton of people are still wholly committed to a white male patriarchy and she directly and very publicly challenged that.

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

On a scale of 1-10 for potential shitstorm, with 10 being the whistleblower's identity, Christine Blasey Ford rates about a 2, maybe 2.5.  Few remember her at this point, nobody is going to try and kill her while screaming "MAGA TRUMP FOREVER".   The whistleblower's identity, should it be actually revealed (so far it seems like a lot of pranksters and people guessing) would not leave the public conscious.

She has not been able to go back to her job as a professor, and has to pay for private security because she's still receiving death threats.  And she's had to move four times.

[Anastasis 23700]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I didn't say nuthin' about underlying influences...

Applying the term "nonaggression" to describe opposition to those treaties and agreements is not an accurate description as it implies that those in favor, such as myself, are aggressors.

You quote a post where I was responding to the notion that libertarians value individual liberty over anything else. I suggested that many would rank non-aggression as overriding individual liberty. You are the one who interjected to swap the term "non-aggression" with "isolationism", listing out some broad foreign policy issues including notably trade policy, chiefly defining non-aggression in supposed opposition to these policies. I don't agree with that characterization. You are the only one who has positioned any implication of yourself as "aggressor" through the initial terminology gymnastics you performed to characterize the NAP as "isolationism".  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bolverk 30243]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You quote a post where I was responding to the notion that libertarians value individual liberty over anything else. I suggested that many would rank non-aggression as overriding individual liberty. You are the one who interjected to swap the term "non-aggression" with "isolationism", listing out some broad foreign policy issues including notably trade policy, chiefly defining non-aggression in supposed opposition to these policies. I don't agree with that characterization. You are the only one who has positioned any implication of yourself as "aggressor" through the initial terminology gymnastics you performed to characterize the NAP as "isolationism".  

Bullshit. I said that nonagression doesn't fully describe Libertarian views on foreign policy and instead stated a broader isolationism principle seems to be more accurate. Again, show me Libertarians who are supportive of having a robust policy of engaging with foreign countries on international issues.

[Brisketexan 106632]

Just now, bolverk said:

Bullshit. I said that nonagression doesn't fully describe Libertarian views on foreign policy and instead stated a broader isolationism principle seems to be more accurate. Again, show me Libertarians who are supportive of having a robust policy of engaging with foreign countries on international issues.

This.  Bolverk is pretty spot-on with this, actually.  The total isolationist bent of modern libertarians is puzzling, but remarkably consistent.

[Anastasis 23700]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

I said that nonagression doesn't fully describe Libertarian views on foreign policy and instead stated a broader isolationism principle seems to be more accurate.

No where did you actually say that words. I surely did not argue that the NAP fully accounts for libertarian views on trade and foreign policy. What I suggest was that in the hierarchy of influences on libertarian views, many would weigh the NAP over individual liberty when the two are in conflict.  You are the one who went off into a self initiated tangent where the first step involved terminology gymnastics. 

[Anastasis 23700]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Bolverk is pretty spot-on with this, actually.  The total isolationist bent of modern libertarians is puzzling, but remarkably consistent.

I think that conflating a non-interventionist stance wrt the way that we interact with the rest of the world, in particular through our military deployment, with "isolationism" is pretty weak.  Not quite as weak as conflating the NAP with "isolationism", but still weak.

Free trade and diplomatic engagement based on mutual respect and non-aggression rather than military tipped engagements and agreements that primarily serve to enforce hegemonic interest of certain nations at the expense of rights of others is not "isolationism".  If anything it is an internationalism that respects the rights, interests, and self-determination of others.   

[Captainant 28405]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Bullshit. I said that nonagression doesn't fully describe Libertarian views on foreign policy and instead stated a broader isolationism principle seems to be more accurate. Again, show me Libertarians who are supportive of having a robust policy of engaging with foreign countries on international issues.

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

No where did you actually say that words. I surely did not argue that the NAP fully accounts for libertarian views on trade and foreign policy. What I suggest was that in the hierarchy of influences on libertarian views, many would weigh the NAP over individual liberty when the two are in conflict.  You are the one who went off into a self initiated tangent where the first step involved terminology gymnastics. 

 

15 hours ago, bolverk said:

I would say "non agression" is the wrong term. From what I can tell, the more accurate description of a coherent and consistent foreign policy stance (trade and defense) among Libertarians appears to be "isolationism."

 

For the record, he did actually say exactly that. 

[Brisketexan 106632]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that conflating a non-interventionist stance wrt the way that we interact with the rest of the world, in particular through our military deployment, with "isolationism" is pretty weak.  Not quite as weak as conflating the NAP with "isolationism", but still weak.

Free trade and diplomatic engagement based on mutual respect and non-aggression rather than military tipped engagements and agreements that primarily serve to enforce hegemonic interest of certain nations at the expense of rights of others is not "isolationism".  If anything it is an internationalism that respects the rights, interests, and self-determination of others.   

Oh, I'm sorry.  You seem to think that we're discussing your fantasyland version of libertarianism.  We're discussing the one actually espoused and practiced by the bulk of those who purport to be "libertarian."  If you'd like to discuss the fantastical but effectively non-existent version of libertarianism that you describe, go to the parlor, light a pipe, and engage with the other fanciful types.  If you'd like to discuss the "libertarianism" that's actually out there in the real world, you'll start from an understanding that isolationism is pretty damned spot-on for how they practice.

Shit, modern libertarians are statists by different names.  Statists want me to be crushed and destroyed by the government.  Libertarians want me to be crushed and destroyed by anarcho-capitalism with no anchor in human values, so long as they get theirs.  No principles.  Just perpetual and inviolable power and selfishness by slightly varying mechanisms.  Hooray.  The libertarians are here to save us.

Layer on the fact that Rand is nothing but a narcissistic selfish piece of shit whose only true guiding principle is retaining power.....well, you've mixed up quite a potent cocktail of shit right there.  Drink up, but don't expect any of the rest of us to join you.

[Anastasis 23700]

I am well aware that thinking for a moment that maybe we should not be militarizing the world through a barrage of arms deals, that maybe we should engage freely in trade and dialogue, respecting the will and rights of others, and not acting as though not every one of our own self-interests should be enforced through threat of violence is fantasy land. Yours is not the only ledge on the building.    

[Brisketexan 106632]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I am well aware that thinking for a moment that maybe we should not be militarizing the world through a barrage of arms deals, that maybe we should engage freely in trade and dialogue, respecting the will and rights of others, and not acting as though not every one of our own self-interests should be enforced through threat of violence is fantasy land. Yours is not the only ledge on the building.    

When the reality of the Rand Paul play is "abandon the field completely, to have it filled by interests openly hostile to us in a way that doesn't allow us to ever re-enter the field," that's not what your fantasy is, even.  It's just fucking stupid.

Residing in fantasyland while the real world practices realpolitik is fucking stupid, and you know it.  And spouting off bullshit like you just did is just an excuse.  There's something in between violent oppression and ceding the field and opposing any and all international agreements (seriously, your pals oppose NAFTA, the EU, the Paris Climate Agreement....shit, I challenge you to find one international agreement they DO support).  "Libertarian" is, in reality, simply a substitute word for "I want to be as shitty as I want to be, with no legal consequences, because fuck the government, and that means no international deals either, because those deals might require me not to be shitty."

Libertarianism is just an amalgam of anarcho-capitalism, selfishness, lawlessness, with a healthy sprinkling of racism on top (go ahead and read up on your vaunted Paul family).

[hayden_horn 11401]

16 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I used to call myself a Libertarian.  I spent most of my time back then talking shit about Bush II.  The problem is, I saw that most people who called themselves Libertarian were either fucking crazy or they were Republicans but didn't want to admit it.  So I quit calling myself that.  I guess my party now is the Never Vote Republican party...

yeah, i used to think i was there as well. and i guess i'm right there with you on the Never Vote Republican party right now. i suppose that can change, but i will not vote for another republican in the near future, until they get their fucking house in order. i voted for cornyn in 2014. i guess that was one of the last times i voted (R). what a fucking mistake that turned out to be.

[jimmyjazz 46982]

I find all of this back and forth very fascinating.  Up until a few years ago, I identified as "slightly left of center", sprinkled with copouts about leaning towards fiscal conservatism, which was not really true in the sense of modern fiscal conservatism (because it probably doesn't exist).  I took heat from both sides because "if you're not anything you're nothing" and whatever.

Many of our forum conservatives have now abandoned their party because their sense of patriotism rightly trumps (heh) their ideology.  I don't really think any of y'all are abandoning your perspective, at least not wholesale, but have rather determined (with great accuracy) that there is no party for a true conservative these days.  At the very least it's obvious that the Republicans AREN'T the answer any more.

Just some thoughts.  I doubt many are actually becoming more liberal, but it's more like they had certain progressive views (abhorrence of racism and other bigotry, reproductive rights, etc.) hard-wired in their psyche but were entrenched in a group identity that discouraged expressing those views, so those discussions were more or less off limits.  Times are . . . interesting.

[bolverk 30243]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Times are . . . interesting.

Ancient Chinese secret proverb curse, huh?

[Anastasis 23700]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There's something in between violent oppression and ceding the field and opposing any and all international agreements (seriously, your pals oppose NAFTA, the EU, the Paris Climate Agreement....shit, I challenge you to find one international agreement they DO support).  "Libertarian" is, in reality, simply a substitute word for "I want to be as shitty as I want to be, with no legal consequences, because fuck the government, and that means no international deals either, because those deals might require me not to be shitty."

I think that the most libertarians support unilateral free trade.  Among those, opposition is based on the fact that NAFTA does not represent free trade.  TPP was referenced earlier as an example of libertarian isolationism. Anybody care to go down the list of presidential candidates and their positions on TPP, both during 2016 and 2020? I am not sure that TPP is a great example to deploy in this discussion.  Seems that a lot of different people from different political perspectives have misgivings. 

I personally don't really care about the EU. If individuals in other countries determine that they want to make economic and political arrangements with other countries that should be within their right of self-determination. As should their ability to leave such an agreement if they so choose. 

I also don't have any problem with international treaties.  I think that those agreements need to be equitable and should recognize individual liberty and self-determination principles.  Perhaps most importantly, I think that these international agreements which obligate certain actions by the United States need to be approved through the constitutionally required process to enter treaties, rather than simple executive order.  I am opposed to consolidation of the power to enter these agreements to the Executive Branch. For someone ostensibly concerned about consolidating power in the Executive Branch, it is amazing that you don't understand this perspective.

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Libertarian" is, in reality, simply a substitute word for "I want to be as shitty as I want to be, with no legal consequences, because fuck the government, and that means no international deals either, because those deals might require me not to be shitty."

OK. Cool

Hook 'Em!

 

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

On 11/5/2019 at 5:57 AM, Anastasis said:

 I do however think that the whistleblower should step forward and voluntarily testify to Congress.

 

So magats can ruin his life?

He and his family would have to enter some sort of witness protection program. Fuck that.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So magats can ruin his life?

He and his family would have to enter some sort of witness protection program. Fuck that.

Yup.  With the added bonus of discouraging other whistleblowers (and god knows there's plenty of other criminality in the trump admin) to come forward.

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

And quite honestly, the whistle blower doesn't even really matter anymore. His claims have been repeatedly supported by other testimony, much of that coming from DOTARD's own people.

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

And quite honestly, the whistle blower doesn't even really matter anymore. His claims have been repeatedly supported by other testimony, much of that coming from DOTARD's own people.

No, but outing the whistleblower works by intimidating any future potential whistleblowers.

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

9 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

No, but outing the whistleblower works by intimidating any future potential whistleblowers.

 

Right. Ol' Rand knows this. Which is why he sent up a flag to RT to do his dirty work for him.

[CowboyFred 1162]

On 11/5/2019 at 11:18 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

lulz

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1191755779675738112?s=20

Edited November 6, 2019 by CowboyFred
don't know how to post tweets

[Brisketexan 106632]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

For someone ostensibly concerned about consolidating power in the Executive Branch, it is amazing that you don't understand this perspective.

I'm sorry, were you talking to me, or to Rand?

[Anastasis 23700]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I'm sorry, were you talking to me, or to Rand?

You. 

[Brisketexan 106632]

Just now, Anastasis said:

You. 

Might want to send a note to the guy who can hardly pause his fellatio of the executive.  The same guy who casually dismisses laws protecting whistleblowers -- who perform a vital function in checking executive power.  He's a senator from Kentucky.  You've probably heard of him.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Might want to send a note to the guy who can hardly pause his fellatio of the executive.  The same guy who casually dismisses laws protecting whistleblowers -- who perform a vital function in checking executive power.  He's a senator from Kentucky.  You've probably heard of him.

Pointing out Rand’s own conflicting views, flip flops on votes, and words he says doesn’t deter our favorite principled libertarian from undying support. 

[Anastasis 23700]

 

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Might want to send a note to the guy who can hardly pause his fellatio of the executive.  The same guy who casually dismisses laws protecting whistleblowers -- who perform a vital function in checking executive power.  He's a senator from Kentucky.  You've probably heard of him.

You are just avoiding my point related to international agreements and consolidation of power in the executive branch by deflecting.  As far as Paul is concerned, I listed a number of votes from the current congress earlier that relate to executive power, and also acknowledged that I don't agree with his approach in the whistle blower matter.   

[atomheartbevo 90550]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, this is waaay off. The right is still incensed over the Kavanaugh thing and Blasey Ford still gets death threats. She probably will for the rest of her life. A ton of people are still wholly committed to a white male patriarchy and she directly and very publicly challenged that.

 

3 hours ago, lemonlime said:

She has not been able to go back to her job as a professor, and has to pay for private security because she's still receiving death threats.  And she's had to move four times.

All of that happened to her prior to November 2018 (although I'm sure she occasionally gets harassed online, incels have a lot of free time).   And she didn't lose her job - the university said it's a just a matter of when/if she decides to go back.

But where is she in 2019?  And how long did her experience last?

Well, last week, she was giving a public speech after accepting an award at her local YMCA.  She was accompanied by her massive security detail son.

And what did she say of her ordeal?  Well, she mentioned it while paying tribute to civil rights activist Dolores Huerta:

"My experience lasted only a few months. Dolores, your entire life is an inspiration."

Now, I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that if the whistleblower is outted, a year from now they won't be publicly accepting an award from their fucking local YMCA, accompanied by their child.

And again, I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that the whistleblower is not going to parrot Blasey-Ford's comment of "My experience lasted only a few months."

Because Kavanaugh doesn't have a cult of personality around him like Trump does.  Kavanaugh wasn't on twitter screaming "DO SOMETHING!".  Kavanaugh still made it to the USSC.

But this?  This is kind of leaving a bit of a mark on Trump.  This is going to help see him get his ass kicked at the voting booth next year.  This could see his family (and fortune) drastically affected.  This is going to see him on twitter barking out orders to his legion of incels and MAGATs to do "DO SOMETHING!"

Edited November 6, 2019 by atomheartbevo