Rand Paul Drops Out
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 10 months ago to Politics
Potentially the best offering from the GOP has suspended his campaign... The writing was on the wall. He wasn't going to get the nomination. The support was not there in numbers large enough to force the establishment in Washington, or in the MSM to sit up and notice. Without that he appeared as a wall flower. For may Objectivists determined to stand on principle, the third party candidate Gary Johnson looks even more attractive. No?
I agree with you that Rand needs to learn from the experience exactly as you say. He hasn't proven he has his father's grit yet though.
If people keep supporting the GOP against their ethical reasoning no third party will even have a chance. Gary Johnson deserves your support; none of the others do. He is the rebel with a cause you say is needed.
About Cruz: He does exhibit reverence for the Constitution, small government and a disdain for the establishment elites... We may have the chance to find whether it is authentic or just political theater if the insiders don't destroy his chances... Trump is now making noise about the Iowa results and threatening a lawsuit or challenge. http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/03... Strange how quickly the worm turns... I'm glad Trump is in the race just to shake things up, but I am still waiting for his "jump the shark moment." what a wild ride...
I'd love to see a guy campaign on a single promise. "If elected I solemnly swear never to set foot in Washington."
That is fantastic. :)
Thank's
O.A.
I knew you would have some good insight... being an Iowa Gal... :)
I completely agree about the suspension too. Who changes their vote on such a matter without hearing it from the candidate? This speaks volumes about the opinion of the electorate held by purveyors of such nonsense. Everybody knows politics is a dirty game. People who are steadfastly honorable seem to be at a disadvantage.
Regards,
O.A.
This election has been so full of surprises I wouldn't venture a prediction on the general election right now. But I believe he could beat her like a rug in a debate. The problem is that they are so far apart that the supporters of each will not care or be swayed. So many are mere Lemmings. The right absolutely hates Clinton and Sanders and the left is apoplectic over Cruz.
Listening to some of the news feeds one would think she might need to fear the FBI more.
I think the Clinton machine is so big and powerful that the odds of her actually being prosecuted are
not good. I hope I am wrong, but it is so seldom we see anyone whose name we recognize from government actually held responsible. Some underling will be thrown under the bus first...
Respectfully,
O.A.
A few election cycles ago I decided that I couldn't vote for the lesser of two evils any more and I couldn't vote for someone unless I actually wanted them to win. If Gary Johnson makes it on the ballot in CT I'll vote for him. It's true he stands no chance but it's anything but a protest vote. The only wasted vote is one cast for a candidate that you don't actually want to see in office on his own merits.
I like to imagine a future where we have instant runoff voting, where everyone marks their first, second, and third choices. I think that would make people feel secure enough that they'd vote their real first choice and then the lesser of two evils as their second choice. People might get a wake-up call when Johnson pulled huge numbers. Maybe not win, but numbers big enough to frighten the pants off our current rulers.
Personally I support Cruz and feel I could vote Rubio if he was the choice. Below is a link from Heritage that shows Rubio's position & votes that may help. For me if not one of those 2, I may swallow hard and vote trump if I had to simply to find out if I were right or wrong about him.
http://www.heritageactionscorecard.co...
If you have not read Cruz's book, I strongly suggest it. If my memory is correct, one of the things I've read is you don't like him because of his religion. His religion does not bother me because I truly believe he will stand for the Constitution and it allows people to choose for themselves religion or non at all.
I decided to back Cruz several days ago.
Gary Johnson? He's an open option that depends on what may happen.
But keep in mind I'm old enough to recall how votes diverted for Ross Perot helped the first Candidate Clinton sleaze his way into the Oral Office.
No,I didn't misspell a certain word.
I was on the state central committee of the LP of Connecticut for quite a few years. Nothing made us happier than to be spoilers. We had a candidate or two in close races come to us asking our candidate to back out. We were steadfast in our reply, "If you run on a libertarian platform we won't need to run against you. If not, we're more than happy to spoil the race."
I'm more interested in stopping the evil hag and/or the whack job socialist from destroying the Constitution.
No two people have exactly the same opinions an all matters, although some are quite close. Everyone here has a vastly more objectivist point of view than the people on Daily Kos, but we nevertheless disagree.
In a voting situation you have to find enough people who share views with you that you can form a majority. Unfortunately the larger the group the less they will all share your views. You wind up voting for someone who only shares some of your views because they share more of them than the other candidate who might make a majority.
If your views are only shared by a small percentage of the population, then this can be unfortunate. The solution is to promote your views so that the number of people who share them increases.
We have a lot of promoting to do. I hope most of you have progeny to carry on. This fight is timeless.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Good quote.
Thank's,
O.A.
Too bad about Rand Paul. His biggest problem is that his demeanor is that of a high school teacher in a class full of slackers. Too bad, but appearance is important when dealing with the majority huddled in the shallow end of the pool.
"The enemy of my enemy..." Yes, Cruz has that going for him.
So hard to judge one by their accomplishments yet to occur... :D
As for what he has done so far... Well, he has made a lot of the right enemies. His mysticism is probably as impotent legislatively as any modern POTUS... Assessing potential threat level of the candidates is what it has come down too...
The contest is a popularity/beauty contest and Circus Maximus... this too is what it has become.
As individuals we must make our own way as best as we can and provide example. For those that wish to take the path of destruction.... just don't let them take you with them.
Regards,
O.A.
(I know we both want more liberty and less govt, term2;^)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johns...
That site has a rating system that proably does not represent your thinking, so keep your eyes open for bias from the site.
There is also a wiki page for Johnson's political positions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...
Interesting guy. Like most Libertarians, he's weak on foreign policy. A few other disagreements, but by and large acceptable.
It is sad. Unfortunately, he ran a very poor disorganized campaign. He needed a unifying theme and one issue to drum on and instead he was all over the map.
when the nation shifted to terrorist anxiety. -- j
.
Not to diminish the losses at the hands of terrorists, but which is actually more of a threat to the public liberty at large? Where are the priorities of people? of the media?
Yeah, we are once again going to be stuck with someone not of our liking. Nowadays It feels lucky just to imagine having someone barely tolerable.
Respectfully,
O.A.
a) medical mistakes
b) terrorists
c) federal government
We know. :) Of course there is no tolerable level of terrorism, and what can be done to curb it should be, but the statistics are what they are. Now, if you are one of the survivors of the dead, from say... 911 you probably aren't interested in the math... It is not logical, but it is all too human.
It is clear elections involve too much emotion and too little analysis and reason.
Regards,
O.A.
No, can't agree. Liberty is too precious to sacrifice it.
If I had lost someone in the 9-11 activities, then I would want to know the truth first. Those who hide the truth and use the circumstances to increase their own power and wealth, and to destroy liberty are despicable, and could very well be culpable for the lives lost on 9-11 and for hundreds of thousands more since 9-11.
Elections definitely involve too little rational thought on the part of anyone who consents to more of the same.
Did I suggest that Liberty need be sacrificed? That is not in "what can be done" meant in my mind. My error in clarity. Let me be clear. I mean what can be done without violating rights, or diminishing the liberty our Constitution is suppose to ensure. And, I include that which we have already lost.
Regards,
O.A.
Yes. It's a shame.
His key issue should have been the NSA and the over reach of the regulatory state.
Me, I'm tired of it. Last summer my son and I were going into the local air show for the day. They had a bunch of tables where each attendee had to step up and open all their bags so an "official" could go into the air show. You know...the ole TSA-type of search. Just to go to an airshow. They don't allow bottled water, soda, anything like that. My little son looked up and asked (right in front of the guard going through our stuff), "Dad...why is he doing that?" I responded loud and clear, "That's because we're suspects, son." The guy abruptly ended his search early, smiled at me, and said, "Go on in. Have a great day." Haha... (Your comment reminded me...)
Assuming the president could do all that stuff, you would also be adjusting the withholding tables, putting more money in people's pockets.
Very. His father was a more seasoned campaigner, yet I hope he sharpens his skills for the future. He is one of the few who shifts my balance in their direction.
Regards,
O.A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMlH...
yes, still grieving on many fronts :)
Must have looked pretty silly, now that I look at it in retrospect. Oh to be so young, naive and carefree again...
Always a pleasure hearing from you, JB.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-gei....
We have failed in that regard. Not us specifically... Our fellow citizens have failed us. Just one more failure of collectivism... The inevitable result of rejecting original intent and adherence to our founding documents. We were born too late. There is little land left on earth that a government would not crush any Gulch. One would need to build anew Atlantis under the ocean or on the moon...
Perhaps our lost Republic may once again rise like the Phoenix.
One can hope,
O.A.
Yes. This is the real tragedy. It is not the fools we elect, it is the fools that do the electing... there are too many that no longer value Liberty.
We must change this. Talk to every young person you know about Liberty, especially the younger generations that must now be deprogrammed, thanks to our statist education system.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Respectfully,
O.A.
The problem with socialism is that it doesnt work in practice, no matter how attractive it appears to be. Look at Venezuela. The place is crashing by the day, but maduro is still alive and in charge (which amazes me). The ONLY thing that will turn the statists in this country around is seeing that the socialist ideas just arent practical- which means they must SEE the country crash before they will believe it. Until then, politics is a useless arena.
Some people must learn the hard way. Generally our public education system is ideologically sympathetic to Marxism, altruism, statism and collectivism. Thus, history contrary to these ideologies is scrubbed... slanted...
“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
― Edmund Burke
Respecfully,
O.A.
He might have garnered a bit more attention too if the field was not so deep with others less desirable.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I feel like we're poised for a backlash. I thought there would be a backlash against President Obama. After years of politicians saying we need to terrified and let gov't borrow more money to fight evil-doers, people wanted "hope" and "change". Every weekend on the downtown Square there was a protest with puppets against the drone strikes, military occupations, and secret prisons. Immediately after the inauguration, we went straight to arguments of we need to be terrified and let the gov't borrow more money. The drone strikes and Guantanamo didn't go away. The borrowing got much worse. A hopeful person like me who wants change gets more frustrated. It seems like time for a libertarian backlash, but I don't see it materializing.
he's making religion a platform in his campaign. I
don't think there is much danger from him in that
respect. But I do think there is a good chance he
would bring in more freedom for free enterprise.
Whereas Trump is definitely not a free-enter-
prise man. Look at his remarks on eminent do-
main, for instance.
It has been clear to me for years that a politician's social conservatism affects my life less severely than his lack of fiscal conservatism. Poor fiscal policy and economics destroys my livelihood, but they don't yet resources to keep me from doing anything I like in my life, so long as I don't do something stupid in public. I generally see that as virtue anyway. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
It appears at least that he has read it... Yes. He would be a superior judge. :)
Regards,
O.A.
Bush nominated Harriet Myers, and I don't think she was ever a lawyer.
I'm glad that's not a requirement. The only test should be your ability to read it out loud and explain what it means. That and swear on your life that it's not a "living document" outside of being lawfully amended.
The Libertarian Party hopes to be on the ballot in all 50 states, but that's going to require a lot of money.
If you want to insure Gary Johnson's name appears in all 50 states, plus DC, here's the link to make that happen: http://www.lp.org/ballotfund
If it is to be, it's up to me.
FYI................Mark Hinkle,
Retired LP Chair
Thank you for the handy link and input.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Cruz admits that he has few, if any, U.S. Senators backing him. That is a sign that he's unpopular with the Washington Lobby (same as Sarah Palin). That should count for something.
As far as his outspoken religious view go...I would definitely prefer him over an atheist.
First impressions are often right and powerful, but one must make exceptions, no? Would you judge AS by its cover? :)
I would wish to gauge the level of zealotry, either religious or atheistic. I have a personal preference, but our nation is already divided enough. I feel we would fare best if it was not overt and dominating in the thoughts and governance of whoever is in consideration.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Hey...Donald and Harlequin...I can just picture him with a silly hat.
Besides, here's the litmus test:
"...therefore, here is what you must know. Given that the official story is patently absurd, anyone, I mean anyone who promotes the official story, who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or too stupid to pat their head and chew gum at the same time. Any presidential candidate who does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished this attack. It all comes down to 911. Everything that has happened has happened based on a lie. Everyone in government, in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye, and the public who accept and promote the official story is either a traitor or a tool. Everyone who does not stand forth and speak the truth to power is a coward, a liar and complicit in mass murder. Everyone, everywhere can be measured according to this litmus test." ~ Les Visible & The Heretic - 911 is the Litmus Test
https://youtu.be/p6O4LE0eTYc
You and your GOP brothers and sisters are responsible for the downfall of liberty in America because you haven't the courage to stand up for your principles. But that is the legacy of the GOP. They offer temporary safety, and you take it over liberty every time.
You are making the same mistake repeatedly, the mistake that GOP propaganda wants you to make. It isn't rational to make a choice between two evils when there is a third choice that is not evil. Don't waste your vote
You play the game under the rules of the statists and you lose every single time.
Vote on principle, not on fear instilled by GOP propaganda.
Rational people must take a stand against the state, no matter how unlikely victory seems at present. Clearly most Democrat voters will not choose liberty. Republican voters are the block of voters who have the opportunity to make the difference between statist dictatorship and liberty.
"He seems to be sincere in his belief of limited government and big spending, etc. "
Of course he is. If he is new to the game he may even mean it, but he will learn that the GOP will not give him any responsibility until he becomes a statist. When he does he will get power and the game goes on.
Competition is the reason that markets work.
If you believe in free markets and liberty you must rationally vote for the third party.
You wnat to vote for the GOP because they have frightened you. Fear is the tool that the statists use consistenly to keep and increase their power.
Fool you once shame on them. Fool you repeatedly, shame on you.
Not too much in the way of heroics in that party given how they joined in kicking the constitution to shreds.
No one else allowed in....closed shop union style list of candidates and delegates. Find and some weakness it' disappears. Let us not forget it is the support of the left who are already the source of the down fall of liberty. Isn't it wonderful they give you two ways to waste your vote and blame you for being a flusher.
95% of all votes cast will accrue to left wing fascist socialists no matter which party ha ha wins.
And no one willing in crease a ten or even a one and bet the other way.
Judging by this group the left will have little problem winning. Arf Arf Barf is not an acceptable solution.
That is the math of it. One cannot deny the pragmatic and practical reality. One must do as their conscious dictates.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I heard Ron White was considering a run too...
http://ronwhiteforpresident.com/
I could vote for him, just for the laughs.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Russia, China, Iran,
ISIS, al Qeada, HAMAS
Also, many up and coming Middle East troubles such as Syria, Iraq.
Then there's the infiltration problem that IS involving us from the border with Mexico coming up from Central and South America.
As to N. Korea, it is being ruled by a nutcase that can involve us if he bombs S. Korea, Israel, etc. With all due respect, and I mean it because I do read your posts, that's a rather stupid question, is it not?.
The nutcase neocons are much more worrisome to me. Donald Trump with the power of the US presidency is much more frightening than Kim the Ill.
I do understand your point of view, but I think that Johnson does, too. The military industrial complex has a firm grip on their fate. Cui Bono.
Our inept foreign policy is just one of the idiocies Washington has perpetuated. Everything from the economy to lawmaking, to restriction rules, etc.etc. has gotten even some of the sleeping voters to wake up. Of course those newly awakened voters look favorably at Trump as their savior, not realizing that he will be, in the long run, the worst possible choice.
I agree. The Founders of the US were afraid the military would indirectly influence politics and imagined a minimal standing army with armed citizens protecting the country. This approach would still work today.
I say thats Trump. If Trump isnt nominated, I think its likely Sanders will get elected in the fall. Religious zealots Cruz and Rubio are cut from the same cloth as Hillary and Sanders when it comes to actual running of the country- so the one who gives away the most will garner the most votes.
If they had instant runnoff voting, I would vote libertarian. If Clinton gets the nomination, I will support her simply to keep a non-Paul Republican from becoming president. If Sanders gets it, I don't know. I think I would try to ignore the whole thing and metaphorically "move to Canada".
For a while I thought if Sanders got it maybe Bloomberg would run, but the country isn't ready for a 5'7" neo-liberal electrical engineer / tech startup founder. :)
Almost as bad a choice as Obama was in 2008.
By 2012 Obama had proven to be even worse, but a lot of irrational people fell for his con a second time and the results speak for themselves. Such irrational people don't learn from their own mistakes or from the observation of socialist policy disasters.
If such people really believed in liberty they wouldn't even consider wasting their votes on statists like Clinton, or Sanders, or Trump, or anyone else that the GOP selects as their puppet candidate. If they wanted liberty they would vote based on that principle instead of wasting their votes on the supposed lesser evil. No third party will ever have a chance if good men of principle continue to vote for evil.
No, not unless Bernie Sanders gets the Democrat nomination. Sadly, I probably never will unless something like instant runoff voting breaks the duopoly.
The cronyism is already in full swing and the election still has a long way to go. Soros just gave millions to support her.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
Do you believe that money from him is without strings?
Google "George Soros is Evil" My search with such a specific set of keywords turned up 126,000 results... You can't believe it is all bunk? How Soros the power broker wheels and deals to make his money and support statist, socialist and liberal redistributionist policies...: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/a...
Respectfully,
O.A.
I wasn't clear what you're saying about Soros, but if I had billions I would probably create a foundation to promote open societies around the world to. I don't know if I would give millions to Clinton. Maybe. But I might think I'd rather support local candidates who are likely to support an open society and maybe not spend the money on the presidential election because it the benefits of not having a Republican are offset by complacency with the presidency getting more and more power. I certainly would not pick until I found out if the Republicans changed direction and nominated someone reasonable. Maybe Clinton went to him and said she'd remember him more if he donated early.
Progressives do not offer new progressive ideas; they offer old Marxist ideas repackaged and renamed, but just as inevitably doomed to oppress liberty and prosperity.
The Clintons are widely held as one of if not the most powerful political names in D.C. They profit by the power of pull. They do deals to scratch each others backs at the expense and servitude of the taxpayers. According to several reports, the Clinton Foundation has been a cash cow for the Clintons paying out an embarrassing percentage on actual charity. It was also reported that big donors received special treatment from Hillary while she was Secretary of State. Look at the past scandals, cover-ups, political upheaval. Do you desire more of that?Consider the future wide spread forced altruism, collectivism, statism and power attainment that would be the result of their expressed policies and evinced by past actions. They are anathema to the oath (see below) and demonstrate it in their actions and policies from health care to taxation. They are big government statists; the polar opposite of limited government public servants. All they need do is feign altruistic, "its all for you" motives and avoid the details and they will sell a pig in a poke.
Do more objective research on the past actions of the marxist, statist, bank breaking, "one worlder" George Soros and the failures and scandals of the Clintons going back to Arkansas. There is too much, to be dismissed out of hand like so many of their supporters and apologists do. It is pure cognitive dissonance, innocent ignorance, or denial to go on supporting this group of cronies. To suggest with a wink and a nod, that one will remember them later for donating now, even if unspoken, but understood, is unethical at best. I won't support someone that reason dictates is a crony of this magnitude.
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." AS
Will you investigate? objectively consider the preponderance of evidence? the probabilities?
Rand Paul was worlds away in political ideology from Hillary.. Your contradictions... I would suggest a half dozen essential reads... ... wasting my time... Some advice: "Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company."
George Washington
Much success, CG.
[The only wasted vote is one cast for a candidate that you don't actually want to see in office on his own merits.]
I don't think this applies to our situation, though, because our society is going strong. It's nowhere near the edge of collapse. Allowing gov't to become more intrusive just gives us a more intrusive gov't. Maybe somewhere in the future it leads to a new American Revolution, but this like calling our problems a Seldon Crisis, with some master plan in the background. Right now many of the problems, including the problems of intrusive and abusive gov't, are way better than they have been in human history. Gov't not respecting liberty is the norm in human history. This bit of liberty we have now is actually the exception. I wouldn't throw it away expecting the pendulum to swing back to liberty.
He made those comments in the first debate about admiring gov'ts who tell women not to do paid work. He repeatedly says "billionaires" with this contempt in his voice, as if they had all this wealth not deployed for any purpose, as if there were piles of goods and services just sitting someone to be had without work. Maybe it's not contempt, but he clearly is talking about getting more money for gov't. Gov't already spends a huge amt of money.
Maybe it's not the specifics that annoy me but just the general assumption he has that someone else will solve your problems for you. He really grates on me.