Adding issues to a platform increase it's scope. That's a whole lot of minus.
Ummmm what got added to what now?
And I guess the entire LRC staff is with Rubio as well...
Probably not. Rockwell is a pretty toward fellow. Oh wait, he did decide with Rothbard to gamble on the political climate in the late 80s and early 90s forever associating their names with ... what was it ... politicians? You asked earlier if I could name an honest person in power. The answer was "no," but there is Rothbard planning with his friends to support this or that faction of voters in order to get their influence in a chunk of the State....
But we're losers because we won't lie cheat and steal our way to a position we don't want, that won't accomplish anything.
Yeah, the point would be to not accomplish anything. Why do you not think it is virtuous to disrupt the machinations of the State? You instead prefer to go head to head with the propaganda system that runs on hundereds of billions of dollars and that molds the opinion of 95% of the voting population? You will lose every election. Form a coalition party with the other third parties...have a little of that if you need to be a boy scout about it.
You just don't seem to be putting much thought into what you are up against.
And what does Rockwell say now? How about Ron Paul? "I do not have much confidence in the political system and never did"? But, let's forget the raw milk and light bulbs issues. Moving the target again, hoss. They're talked about all the time on LRC, amongst other 'watering down' issues, I guess? Or is it your contention that only Rand Paul is watering down the base with that? I don't really see how a double set of standards apply. If I agree with someone on something, then I do. Even if I disagree with them on something else.
If I agree with someone on something, then I do. Even if I disagree with them on something else.
I agree with that!
But I suppose that "advancing liberty" can mean different things altogether
Or is it your contention that only Rand Paul is watering down the base with that? I don't really see how a double set of standards apply.
In a way, yes, because LRC (I don't read much of them anymore) isn't in the poitical machine. Ron Paul was the go to man inside who was at the door of the Fed, constantly standing up for non-interevention, etc. Rand doesn't do that. He votes for sanctions and does so for Israel (as per the OP topic). He plays ball. Do you see that all I have been saying all along is to play ball until you get in then, instead of continuing to play ball (a la Randall Paul, Scott Brown), feign stupidity and screw up things that the people who think you are their ally want to get done? It would be hilarious! Sitcom worthy, but it'd be the actual poltical process. Rather than being a frustrating thing it could be like a reality show, where some people know what the oafs are doing. (Because they would think of you as an oaf rather than some nefarious political operative.) I think Bush Jr. did something close to this now that I think about it, but he was nefarious to the core. You have to fight that impulse...which I suppose is the crux of your argument is that you can't win that battle, right?
And maybe Rand is biding his time and going for the long-con to get into the White House...who knows? He obviosuly isn't ever going to say that if it is the case.
Yeah, that doesn't work. I know what you mean, but this is real life. Congressman Hansen as one example. If you get out of line, they come after you. The more trouble you cause the harder you get it. And unless you're 50%+1 then it won't matter anyway. You know the government is a mafia organization. I know you know that. You never get in a position of real power unless you can be taken down at any moment. In fact, I'm of the understanding those checks and balances are in place to prevent a poisoned pill.
But on the other part, being part of the political machine decreases one's ability to influence or affect change. Ron never did as a Congressman. It was the speaking and touring and speeches. Hardly anyone saw his grilling of Bernanke/Greenspan and they not once changed their policy because of it.
"You have to fight that impulse...which I suppose is the crux of your argument is that you can't win that battle, right?"
No, not exactly. Gang mentality. They always make you do something bad to prove your dedication. Honest people just can't go through with it, and even if they do, they don't make it out alive. At such a level, they know that and acquiesce or back off.
As for Rand being an infiltrator, I've said that if he is doing that, it's best for the 'liberty movement' to criticize him as much as possible as it aids his credibility. Short of presidency, I don't see it making much difference, regardless.
Congressman Hansen as one example. If you get out of line, they come after you. The more trouble you cause the harder you get it.
Exactly, which is why you play dumb and just acidentally screw up on important things. Promise them you'll be the deciding vote, but then get "caught in traffic" and miss the vote. Then apologize profusely and promise you'll be there next time. Things like that.
You know the government is a mafia organization. I know you know that. You never get in a position of real power unless you can be taken down at any moment. In fact, I'm of the understanding those checks and balances are in place to prevent a poisoned pill.
I agree there too.
You are referring, possibly, to the honeypot. Just, ...idk recognize those scenarios when they come up. Read up on old KGB seducing agents they were good at blackmailing US agents because they assumed that Americans were obsessed with sex and materialism and it turns out they were right! CIA never once penetrated the KGB, but the KGB had some 20,000 espionage agents in the US governemnt alone.
Yeah. Covered above.
True, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. Only if he did almost exactly what I have been describing would he be able to stumble his way to an inner echelon for him make a difference. And you know those Pagan cults that the top players vibe on? Most look at morality as an illusion. You only have choice, consequences, and temptations. You atone morality by doing good deeds to counter the bad deeds you have done. Start the Vietnam War? Build several memorials and restore a childrens hospital. You know what I mean?