19 votes

For those of you that can't get on board the Rand 2016 train ...

... May I recommend the Judge Andrew Napolitano / Justin Amash 2016 Ticket

any takers ???




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We have a different test to

We have a different test to determine who we'll vote for, clearly.
You place the Constitution above all else, that's fine. I place my own personal stances above all else. My stances align with the Constitution much of the time, but oftentimes they go beyond it.
I don't place a higher value on one of my stances because it is in the Constitution. Just because, 'we should not have a world empire' or some equivalent is not in the Constitution, does not make it an unimportant issue, or one that is critically less important than the right to due process, arms or expression.

As for calling me a 'rationalizer,' I appreciate that. I consider it entirely rational that if somebody comes along that is aligned with my positions 60% of the time, I'm more likely to support them than someone who agrees with only 20% of them. My goal is to make government more like my ideal model, which would be any step closer to a smaller, less authoritative government that is possible. Not Kucinich or anybody else can take guns away from Americans. I'm not even worried about that. But Kucinich, as President for example, could veto the Patriot Act, or actually bring most of our troops home from all around the world, and I believe he would. Who else can you say that for, aside from the people I placed above him on my list and maybe a few others who have extremely low recognition?

Another Attempt at Diversion

I stand for Individualism and individual liberty, constitutionally-enumerated or not.

I simply addressed Kucinich's clearly stated position that he believes in disarming the people and that he does not support Amendment II...You know, Amendment II, the one that simply 'enumerates' the previously existing fundamental liberty that I stand on, one of many.

The fact that this fundamental liberty is enumerated in the Bill of Rights and that I call Kucinich a 'constitution-schitter', seems to have provided you some strange sense that I "place the Constitution above all else", unless, of course, you are merely saying that to divert from your support for a man who does not hold allegiance to what I deem as the most fundamental of individual liberties...since it is the one that provides the means to secure and defend all others.

Yes, you are a rationalizer & justifier. No, that is not, in this context, a desirable trait.

You lay out the case to excuse liberty-destroying positions in the 'hope' that other aspects of a person will result in more benefit.

Nothing new in this. It is a sad, old and extremely common trait and belief system, one that has factually led us directly to where we find ourselves; that being, near the tipping point into totalitarianism.

Some of us consistently reject those who act or advocate contrary to certain fundamental liberties and we certainly reject those who act or advocate contrary to our Constitution, which is, after all, something 'officials' take an Oath to support and defend.

Since we no-compromise, principled liberty advocates are scant few, it is obvious that our rigid-stances do not have a positive or a negative impact on the larger picture. Too bad, because there is nobody in sufficient numbers who will refuse to accept the constant diet of anti-liberty shit sandwiches we are fed.

Yet, on the other hand, those of your position, acting consistently over decades, have developed a provable result.

We are living it.

Kucinich has knowingly and openly violated both his Oath and his credibility and trust on a core fundamental liberty.

The fact that you take the position that you do is not a surprise. You are a proud and willing member of a vast herd of others who do the same.

Congratulations.

Diversion = explanation? Nope, get your paranoia under control

If you were truly diverted by my so-called diversion, I feel sorry for you. Of course, if we disagree, I'm probably some evil totalitarian trying to hoodwink you.

P1: Me too. In fact, I find the Constitution to be a flawed document that hasn't aided liberty much at all. Most of the time, the Constitution's words are directly used to necessitate an increase, not decrease, in the size and range of authority of the government. The notion of using a piece of paper to restrain government is flawed in the first place and history has proven it ineffective.

P2: You and I have the same position on guns rights, aside from apparently how scared you are of losing it due to Kucinich's actions - something I find impossible and absurd. There is one difference though clearly, I don't believe that the second amendment is the most important right we have. I believe that they're all important.

P3: Your own mention of the Constitution as your means test leads to that.

P4: Maybe if I shared your perspective in this matter your insults would sting as much as you want them to, but I don't.

P5: No, I don't. I haven't abandoned or excused any my positions. I still strongly hold all of my positions.

P6: Yes, the notion of compromising to get more of what you want than what you don't want is very old. As far as my brand of compromise leading to totalitarianism, that's absurd and necessarily relies on revisionist history. You're forgetting that not everyone holds anything anywhere near my own views or yours, and that in fact, many people are against the common interpretation of liberty because they genuinely believe the government has to act to solve problems. Oh, but of course, that's all just a matter of compromisers not seizing liberty, right? Take off your blinders.

P7: So, some prefer to see the world in black and white, others see many shades of grey. The options often are: 1. Get 70% what you want, 30% of what you don't want, or 2. Get 0% of what you want and 100% of what you don't want. The black and white crowd might choose option 2 on principle. I choose option 1 because in my view it's better suited to my long-term goals. You can wait around for the perfect candidate to run, that's fine with me. I'm not going to childishly insult you based on how you choose to direct your political action, especially considering we probably agree on most issues. That would just serve to make me look like some kind of arrogant elitist. "Oh, you disagree ever so slightly? TYRANT! EVIL!" pffffffft

P8: Good point. I agree - people who stick to principle and exclude themselves from the process intentionally are incapable of accomplishing much except standing on their principle.

P9: A return to your easily refuted revisionist history, I see. Liberty minded people like myself, who specifically search for candidates who are more in favor of liberty than against it, did not bring about the current fascist state of the U.S. You have to ignore all of the actual fascists in our history who were voted for sincerely. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

P10: Kucinich has much overlap with the liberty movement. Go ahead and write him off though, I don't care one bit.

P11: I'm part of a herd now? Go ahead and lay on that propaganda nice and thick.

I would vote for Napolitano

I would vote for Napolitano any day of the week over Rand. Heck I'd just for the judge any day of the week.

What good does any of this

What good does any of this discussion do if the GOP committee is in place run by Ben Ginsburg for the establishment? If this is not changed and the rules killing the grass roots blown out of the platform. This is all just political masturbation. If things are not right in the GOP by 2014 mid terms it is by most accounts, over. You will be looking are Hillary 16 and an even faster track to fascist controled nationalized socialism than what we are seeing now in Obama's second term. He will register the guns that matter and she will collect them, or at least try to...

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Michael Nystrom's picture

How about a choice for people not interested in

voting, lobbying, or electoral politics?

In the age of the interenet, we don't need "representatives." We can represent ourselves just fine. The technology is there. The government (obviously) hasn't caught up with it because the government is perhaps the most conservative institution in our society. And why should it change? It has the power. It benefits from the status quo.

Don't get me wrong, I like Judge Nap, and Amash too. Even Rand has his use. But the problems we have to solve go beyond electing one man. Elected leaders are just a reflection of our society. We need a cultural shift, and once it happens, the leaders will reflect that shift.

I don't think it can happen the other way around.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

I Would Simply Like to Vote ...

1. Vote none of the above for all political offices
2. Vote to allow citizens to bring criminal charges against defendants
3. Vote to allow the public to dissolve the U.S. Congress
4. Vote to have a sunset provision added to all big budget laws
5. Vote for term limits for Supreme Court and federal judges
6. Vote to repeal all federal laws dealing with victimless acts
7. Vote to dissolve all political parties after elections are held
8. Vote to allow the public to call for special federal elections
9. Vote for constitutional review of all laws prior to enactment

10. Vote to repeal all provisions of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) that violate the constitutional rights of military personnel.

Dude

You're spending too much time at the dailypaul...
;)

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

I'd like to know

How you put this plan into practical use? I'm not being facetious, I just want a real example of how we'd actually achieve this.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Live an honest life

Encourage others to do the same by leading through your actions. Your actions will have a ripple effect in your immediate area.

Expand your influence by institutionalizing it in an honest business. Then expand your business and share the wealth with likeminded people. You will create a larger ripple throughout the world.

Join forces with others of like mind. Create a culture of positivity and honesty in your circles and your relationships. Expand that culture. Don't compromise your values in your personal life. i.e. don't deal in dishonesty simply for monetary gain.

Don't vote for manipulative or dishonest politicians.

A politician cannot change society or culture from the top down. But you and I can, from the bottom up.

How do you do that? Serve people's needs.

Be the servant leader.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

YOU own it.

You make changes in your life, every chance you get. Some are small, some are huge, but you start living it. Look into agorism.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Agreed...

... like passing out flyers for politicians who reflect our views.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

and honestly... that would

and honestly... that would not upset me at all.

For those of you that can't get on the statist train...

...may I recommend anarchy? Not the blood in the streets schema we're given by our mass media and Hollywood, but true, principled anarchy, like Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-syndicalism?

"The seizure of liberty and personal rights will always be under assault so long as there exists an elite ruling class with a monopoly on force."
-Me

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat
www.cerebralindustrialcomplex.com

I would gladly accept it

over what we currently have.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

My first choice is Judge

My first choice is Judge Napolitano. He needs to make a decision now and start collecting money. My second choice is Chuck Baldwin. My third choice would be Rand.

Looks Like You'll Be Voting...

... for Rand Paul in 2016.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

There is a movement to draft the good Judge

at: http://libertycrier.com/politics/top-8-reasons-why-judge-and...

Magna est veritas, et prevalebit. Truth is most powerful, and will ultimately prevail.

Never happen

The only one you will see are the puppets like Rand Paul.

While we may not agree with

While we may not agree with the stances that Rand has taken -- If he honestly has a shot at the nomination, he will have my vote.

He may not be his father -- but in comparison to names like (Jeb) Bush, Rubio, Christie, McCain, Romney, Santorum, Huckleberry --- Rand Paul would be a breath of fresh air.

Get out of the kitchen

if you can't stand the heat.

Still butt hurt about Rand endorsing Romney AFTER he endorsed his dad?

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

jrd3820's picture

As it stands at this exact moment in time

Yes I would take that ticket if I HAD to choose.

If the Judge decides to run for anything I will be right behind him.

Amash is worth watching. PAF says he is on the horizon. He is worth promoting for name recognition and so others can use him as an option for measuring other candidates. He is worth paying close attention to. I'd rather hold him accountable for a while first though.

If I HAD to jump on a train right now I suppose that would be the train I would jump on, but I cannot see jumping on any train this early.